Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill could not have been more timely. The Iran War is affecting our energy supply and our daily lives – rising petrol and diesel prices and higher electricity prices. In fact, if the war prolongs, the supply of fuel and electricity may have to be rationed too, which is already happening in our neighbouring countries. We must be prepared for the worst.

This is a stark reminder that we must conserve energy to the best we can and use energy-efficient equipment and appliances in our industries, in our factories and in our homes.

Sir, this is not a new effort. The MEPS and MELS for local supply of regulated goods were first introduced back in 2012. However, there was a gap as the Act did not cover regulated goods imported by end users for own use.

Over the years, as business practices evolved and consumers import equipment and appliances direct from foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or wholesalers, there is a growing volume of imported electrical appliances being used by end users in businesses and in households which may be non-energy efficient.

These direct imports are usually significantly cheaper than regulated goods sold by local suppliers, because of the removal of a layer of middleman cost. Most end users buy these imported goods to save money upfront – they may not care about energy efficiency or longer-term higher electricity prices.

A local catering business owner told me that he imports refrigerators, chillers and freezers directly from OEMs because of the lower prices, which can be 60% to 70% cheaper than similar models sold by local suppliers. But there is a trade-off. These appliances typically last only around 1.5 to two years, while reputable brands with higher energy efficiency from local supplies may last longer, around two to 2.5 years.

Despite the poorer efficiency and lifespan, many food business owners would still rather take advantage of the substantial upfront cost savings by importing these electrical appliances directly from the OEMs and wholesalers.

The amendment Bill will address this. It will place the onus on end users, to register the imported regulated goods with NEA and demonstrate evidence of compliance with the MEPS and MELS. NEA will also be empowered to take enforcement action against businesses and households that import non-compliant regulated goods for own use.

Overall, we will see more efficient appliances on the market soon – not because of this amendment Bill but because of the global energy crisis. OEMs will be motivated to produce energy efficient models because end users will care about both upfront capital expenses and recurring electricity costs.

The outcome of this amendment is that end users will have more choices of energy-efficient models as well as savings both in capital expenses and recurring electricity costs.

Singaporean households can use the $400 Climate Vouchers for purchases of energy-efficient models from local suppliers as well as importing energy-efficient electrical appliances directly from foreign suppliers.

I do have two questions for the Minister.

The amendment Bill would empower NEA to take action against businesses and households which import non-compliant regulated goods. In the food and beverage (F&B) sector alone, there were 6,355 registered restaurants as of 2023. This figure would be a lot higher if we include the broader F&B sector, such as cafes, bars, food courts, hawker stalls and other specialised food services. Also, there is a high churn in this industry. In 2024, close to 3,000 restaurants closed down while nearly 3,800 new food and restaurant businesses opened.

Given the large number of F&B businesses, coupled with the short average lifespan of two to three years for refrigerators, chillers and freezers, does NEA have an estimate of the total number of electrical appliances and equipment that may be procured annually, as well as the total annual energy consumption? With the amendment Bill, what is the projected reduction in energy consumption, should all F&B businesses deploy MEPS- and MELS-compliant appliances and equipment?

Secondly, given the large number of end users, how does NEA intend to police and enforce this new requirement? I hope the process and requirements will not be too onerous both for the NEA enforcement team and on the part of end users. We should not want to conserve energy in one form, only to expend it in another form. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few points in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Deputy Speaker, the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill requires end users who import regulated electrical products for personal or commercial use to register these appliances with the National Environment Agency (NEA) and demonstrate compliance with Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS), thereby closing the regulatory gap where such imports were previously unregulated. NEA will be granted enforcement powers to take action against non-compliance.

The global energy crisis will drive manufacturers to produce more energy-efficient models, thereby benefiting end users who can save on both initial costs and ongoing electricity expenses.

Singapore households can achieve dual savings by combining Government-provided climate vouchers with the direct import of efficient appliances from overseas suppliers, whilst business operators, particularly those in the food and beverage industry who need to purchase multiple appliances, can also avoid excessive energy costs by using energy-efficient models. This amendment aims to strike a balance between cost savings and environmental responsibility.

However, the key to achieving energy conservation lies in implementing these new regulations in an efficient and effective manner. Otherwise, we would merely be conserving energy in one form whilst consuming more human resources in another.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is important that we do what is right for the environment, especially at this time of threatened energy supplies. I support the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the intents of this Bill. Climate change is an existential threat to our island nation. As I argued during the Budget debate in February, our transition to net zero must be backed by rigorous effective action that is both technically sound and socially just. We must ensure that our green ambitions do not inevitably place an unfair burden on our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and lower-income citizens.

Addressing the digital removal of SME listings. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would first like to turn to the new provisions regarding the digital removal of non-compliant products from online platforms. While we must prevent the entry of energy-guzzling appliances into our market, we must consider the SME squeeze in the e-commerce space.

Unlike large multinational corporations with dedicated compliance departments, our local SME retailers often lack the resources to navigate complex technical test reports for every niche product they list. If a listing is flagged and digitally removed due to a documentation error or a delay in NEA registration, the loss of sales momentum and search algorithm ranking can be devastating for a small business.

How will the Ministry ensure that these digital enforcement powers do not unfairly penalise local SMEs, who may inevitably fall victim to automated take-down algorithms? Will there be a grace period or a simplified verification pathway for local micro-enterprises to ensure they are not crowded out of the digital marketplace by larger players with deeper pockets for compliance?

Next, ambiguity in the circumvention threshold for consumers. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to raise a concern regarding the new section 78, which targets the circumvention of registration requirements. This Bill expends the act to cover goods imported for own use. While this certainly closes a loophole for traders, it creates a grey area for individual consumers.

Many Singaporeans often sell items on online platforms, like Carousell, that are almost brand new, perhaps a gift they cannot use, or a high-end appliance bought for a renovation that was later aborted. Under this Bill, if a resident imports a non-compliant appliance for own use, but later decides to sell it because they have a change of mind, will they suddenly become an unregistered supplier subject to prosecution?

I have three specific clarifications for the Senior Minister of State.

First, the scope of marketplaces. Are all listings on peer-to-peer sites, like Carousell, now subject to these digital removal laws? If so, how will the NEA distinguish between a genuine second-hand sale by a resident and a commercial trader masquerading as individual to offload non-compliant stock?

Second, the evidentiary threshold. What criteria will NEA officers use to prove deliberate evasion versus a genuine change of mind? Without clear guidelines, we risk a situation where an innocent individual selling a gift is caught under the same heavy penalty framework as a rogue trader.

Third, protecting the gift economy. How does the Bill apply to those who receive an imported appliance as a gift and wish to sell it? We must ensure that our drive for energy efficiency does not inevitably criminalise the legitimate second-hand gift economy.

Addressing the software defined energy gap. Mr Deputy Speaker, while this Bill focuses heavily on regulated goods as physical hardware, we must acknowledge that in 2026, energy efficiency is increasingly governed by software. We are certifying the physical engine but ignoring the digital driver. I am concerned that the Bill remains silent on software-driven energy degradation. There is a growing risk that a product's registered efficiency, the very basis of its NEA approval, can be remotely altered post-purchase.

This may happen in three ways. First, firmware throttling. Manufacturers can push over-the-air updates that cap performance to protect hardware longevity at the expense of efficiency. In a Tesla battery litigation in the United States, linked to the 2019 Hong Kong incident, Rasmussen against Tesla 2021 and the 2024 Norwegian Court of Appeal case, we saw disputes over allegations that over-the-air updates throttled capacity and charging speeds to manage hardware longevity post-sale.

If an industrial battery or EV charger is registered at a certain efficiency, but a firmware update throttles it six months later, the original registration becomes a moot point.

Second, the SaaS trap-enforced dilemmitry. Companies, like ABB, now offer an energy optimisation as a service. These AI-driven systems predict load demands for industrial motors. However, how do we prevent the possible scenario that the hardware may revert to a high consumption baseline mode if a local SME stop paying the subscription, even though the physical hardware is perfectly capable of running efficiently? We must ensure that energy efficiency is not held hostage by software subscriptions.

Third software bloatware. The US Department of Energy found that heating ventilation and air conditioning systems often prioritise warranty protection over energy savings. If a chiller software detects a minor sensor error, it may default to a mechanical safety mode that consumes 30% to 40% more energy without alerting the owner. This silent degradation means a building's energy audit may look good on paper, but the software is secretly wasting power.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: one, does the definition of regulated goods under the act extend to the firmware and software that control energy consumption? Two, how does the NEA intend to monitor and regulate software driven energy degradation once an item has been registered and cleared for use? Three, will the Government consider a software integrity requirement where manufacturers must declare if their hardware requires a paid subscription to maintain its registered MEPS rating?

Next, quantitative, transparency and impact accountability. The proposed amendment in this Bill seeks to encompass own use, imports and digital advertising within the regulatory framework. However, the absence of specific projections regarding expected energy savings or carbon abatement from these suggested additions prevent Parliament and Singaporeans from being able to value the efficacy of these measures or account for their performance.

Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity regarding whether the administrative burdens and cost placed upon the public and SMEs are truly proportionate to the actual carbon reductions achieved. While the Bill closes existing regulatory gaps, could the Senior Minister of State provide the specific annual energy conservation targets the Government expects to meet through these new own-use and advertising measures? Specifically, how will these regulations contribute to our national target of peaking emissions at 60,000 kilotonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030? And what methodology will the NEA employ to track and report these savings to the public?

Next, impact on lower-income families. Mr Deputy Speaker. I am also concerned that the Bill's restrictions on own use e-commerce imports may inadvertently raise the entry price for essential appliances. While high efficiency models offer long-term savings, the upfront green premium may potentially create a financial barrier for lower-income households. We must ensure that these regulations do not unfairly burden those who are currently relying on budget-friendly direct imports. Will the Ministry consider top-ups to the Climate Friendly Households Programme or other social equity measures to ensure lower-income families are not priced out of the appliance market by these stricter import controls?

Next, technical and financial barriers of SME compliance. Mr Deputy Speaker, for an SME importing a single piece of specialised industrial equipment for own use, the administrative process of mapping foreign laboratory data to NEA specific registrations can be a significant hurdle.

Unlike large retailers who spread these costs over thousands of units, small enterprises face a "compliance tax" that creates a literal barrier to modernisation as such. Without a simplified registration pathway, the potentially high cost and complexity of compliance may pervert the Bill's intent. Local firms may find it cheaper to keep older, less efficient machinery in operation longer, rather than navigating the new regulatory hurdles to import updated high efficiency technology.

While the NEA recognises test report for Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA)-accredited labs, the actual data submission for single unit imports remains administratively heavy for SMEs. In the spirit of Singapore-Australia Green Economy Agreement, and our Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) commitments, will the Minister consider a fast track or deemed compliant registration pathway for own use imports? Such a move would ensure that compliance costs do not inevitably discourage our local enterprises from adopting the latest energy-saving technologies.

Next, addressing the exclusion of high frequency goods like lighting. While the Ministry has prioritised larger appliances like refrigerators and chillers for the own-use import regime, it has specifically excluded lighting for the time being. However, the cumulative energy footprint of inefficient lighting imported via direct e-commerce remains significant. A phased approach that leaves out these high frequency items may allow a continued influx of sub-standard bulbs and tubes, which may undermine our overarching goal of reducing aggregate household demand. What is the specific data driven justification for excluding lighting from own-use import regulations at this stage?

Furthermore, can the Senior Minister of State provide a definitive timeline or road map for when these and other low consumption but high frequency goods will be included to prevent a prolonged regulatory vacuum?

Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, while this Bill closes necessary retail loopholes, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. Since 2013, our most energy-intensive facilities have been tracking data under this Act, yet for a number of years, the needle on actual efficiency may not have moved much.

At the debate for the second reading of the 2017 amendments for the Energy Conservation Act, the then-Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, noted that while Energy Conservation Act companies saw efficiency gains of 0.4% and 0.6% in 2014 and 2015 respectively, meeting our climate pledge requires doubling or tripling these rates to 1% to 2% annually, in order to match then-leaders like Belgium and the Netherlands.

While the 2017 amendments introduced mandatory management systems and audits, they seem to have stopped short of requiring companies to actually implement these energy saving opportunities they identified, provided they met the MEPS for their equipment. The 2024 amendments mandated the MEPS, which are more prescriptive regarding actual performance levels.

So, can I ask the Senior Minister of State to provide an update, for facilities under this regime for over the last decade, what is the actual aggregate energy reduction achieved to date? And is the Ministry confident that the incremental system-by-system mandates will hit our 2030 targets in time? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Deputy Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the intent of this Bill. Climate change is an existential threat to Singapore, but in pursuing net-zero goals, we must also balance policy fairness and transparency.

Firstly, I am concerned about the burden on small and medium enterprises. I worry that the new "digital deletion" requirements and complex registration procedures will be a "compliance tax" for small businesses with limited resources. The Government should provide a "fast track" or simplified procedures and not let cumbersome paperwork hinder businesses from adopting energy-efficient technology.

Secondly, the grey areas in the second-hand market. Many residents sell unused appliances or gifts on websites like Carousell. If the legal definitions are unclear, might ordinary citizens become "illegal suppliers" for selling a "non-compliant" gift? We must protect the legitimate second-hand economy.

Thirdly, energy wastage caused by software. Many appliances today have their efficiency controlled by software. If manufacturers reduce energy-saving effectiveness through remote updates after selling products or revert devices to high-energy consumption mode because users have not paid software subscription fees, then the original energy-saving registration becomes meaningless. The Government must regulate this "hidden" energy wastage.

Fourthly, caring for low-income families. Restricting online purchases of cheap electrical appliances may increase living costs. The Government should increase subsidies under the Climate Friendly Households Programme (CFHP) to ensure vulnerable groups are not excluded because they cannot afford expensive energy-efficient appliances.

Deputy Speaker, whilst I have the above concerns, I still support this Bill.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the Workers' Party believes in a green transition defined by transparency and accountability. We must implement changes in this Bill with operational integrity and adjust transition protections that our people and our SMEs deserve. Notwithstanding the clarifications that I have sought, I support the Bill.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill. This amendment comes at a time of volatility in global energy markets and where energy efficiency remains one of our first lines of defence against rising fuel costs.

I support the Bill because it closes a gap in our energy efficiency framework. While regulating local supply has been effective, global procurement channels now allow individuals and SMEs to access non-compliant goods directly.

To ensure this amendment works in practice, there are three areas that we must get right. First, ensuring clarity on who bears responsibility and how the requisite standards can be met. In practice, end-users, such as SMEs, often operate through layered procurement arrangements and may not realise they are legally treated as the importer, even when they did not control the purchase. Second, ensuring adequate support for SMEs to transition. Compliance can be costly for SMEs, given that upfront costs for non-compliance are often lower. And third, taking a calibrated approach to enforcement and compliance.

Sir, this Bill addresses the gap in the current landscape by extending the MEPS framework to goods imported for personal use. This Bill will affect both individuals and businesses importing regulated goods for their own use, including SME owners purchasing equipment for shops, offices, clinics, enrichment centres or F&B outlets.

In many cases, household purchases are occasional and more straightforward, as consumers often turn to trusted local suppliers who have already registered these appliances and ensured that they meet prevailing standards. The compliance risks are likely to be more acute for businesses, in particular SMEs. Unlike larger corporations, many SMEs do not have dedicated procurement, legal or compliance teams to check whether the goods they are bringing in meet Singapore's regulatory requirements. Their decisions are often driven by cost, speed and availability, and are frequently made through contractors, franchisors, fit-out firms or overseas suppliers.

There are at least three scenarios where an SME may inadvertently fall foul of the rules.

First, an SME setting up a new outlet may engage a contractor to source the necessary appliances. In trying to keep costs low and meet timelines, the contractor may purchase these goods from an overseas online platform without checking whether they comply with Singapore's MEPS and MELS requirements.

Second, a franchisee may purchase equipment specified by the brand owner, in order to maintain consistency with the wider franchise network or may have a contractual obligation to purchase such equipment. A franchisee may assume that because the equipment is approved or offered by the franchisor, it is also compliant with Singapore's regulatory standards.

Third, many SMEs rely on interior designers or contractors to deliver a unit on a turnkey basis. Appliances, such as refrigeration units, water heaters or air-conditioning systems may be imported as part of the fit-out package, and the SME owner may not even realise that they are also, in legal terms, treated as the importer responsible for compliance.

In each of these scenarios, the SMEs may not have controlled the procurement decision, but may still bear the responsibility as the importer. Unlike larger corporations, the SMEs may not have the bargaining power to either transfer compliance obligations or enforce standards on third-party vendors.

For that reason, while this Bill affects both individuals and businesses, it has greater practical impact on local businesses, and I would like to focus my remarks mainly on SMEs and on how importer liability will be determined in practice.

It is perhaps helpful to start by understanding the scale of the problem that the new laws seek to address. In particular, it would be useful to understand how significant this gap has become and why it is important to address it at this point in time.

Could the Senior Minister of State share the Government's assessment of the percentage of regulated goods currently entering Singapore, through direct imports or other channels, that may previously have fallen outside of the MEPS and MELS frameworks? And what factors drove the need for the amendment at this point in time?

It is also helpful to understand the feedback that went into shaping the proposed new laws. Sir, my second question relates to the public consultation, where NEA received feedback from 15 respondents, most of which were from local suppliers of regulated goods. Could the Ministry clarify whether SMEs, platform operators and other intermediaries in the procurement chain were also consulted, and how their views were taken into account?

This brings me to my concerns about compliance and enforcement – that is, whether and how SMEs will comply with the Act, and whether and how NEA will actively enforce this new offence.

In principle, I appreciate that businesses operating in Singapore should know that they must comply with Singapore laws. In an ideal world, all consumers and businesses would check before purchasing and importing regulated goods. However, as explained earlier, that is not how many SMEs actually buy equipment.

Take the example of a franchisee in the F&B sector who is told to purchase a standard set of equipment from the franchisor. Where the franchisee chooses to move ahead with the purchase, it could be a case of reasonably assuming or relying on third-party assurances that the equipment is compliant; not having enough bargaining power to convince the franchisor to switch; or making an informed, commercial decision that this may fall foul of the regulations. If it makes more commercial sense for SMEs to risk non-compliance with the Act, then the amendment may not achieve its intended deterrent effect.

First, there are the cost-savings of imported versus non-imported goods. Importing an approved single-phase air-conditioning costs about $3,299 online, while it costs $3,999 when bought locally. That is a substantial difference for a single unit, and even more so for bulk purchases. In many cases, the headline cost of regulated goods from overseas sources or parallel imports can be significantly lower.

Second, there are also further indirect costs which may accompany compliance. Where a company or person intends to import a regulated good for their own use, they must still produce test reports to demonstrate that the goods are compliant with the relevant standards. However, where the brand is less known or where the manufacturer's in-house laboratory testing is not to the required standards, the business owner would bear the responsibility of sourcing private lab testing, which can be very costly, both in terms of time and costs.

A simple search on NEA's website shows that for new registrants to be a supplier of regulated goods, the application takes seven working days, and for a Variable Refrigerant Flow air-conditioner a new registration fee costs $85 with renewal fees of $55 yearly. Lab tests lead time and costs could potentially result in commercial delays of months, and cost businesses thousands of dollars.

Whether one is a contractor, fit-out firm or end-user, there is often little immediate incentive to choose the more expensive piece of equipment. Yet, these appliances also have long operating lives, which means that once a non-compliant equipment enters the market, it may remain in use for many years. This makes the NEA's task of education and enforcement significantly more challenging.

One may argue that the long-term energy savings from more efficient equipment should make commercial sense. But that is not always immediately apparent to SMEs that are managing day-to-day operational pressures, cashflow constraints and tight set-up budgets.

While larger firms may be able to absorb these compliance costs, SMEs may instead treat the risk of non-compliance as part of their start-up considerations. In that case, the amendment may not achieve its intended deterrent effects.

So, I would ask the Ministry whether NEA has assessed the average lead time and total compliance cost for SMEs importing regulated goods for their own use. More importantly, has NEA considered how these factors may shape business behaviour, including whether some SMEs may treat the risk of non-compliance as part of their set-up considerations?

In addition, will the NEA consider publishing a public list of commonly used equipment that are compliant, their cost relative to non-compliant equipment and the estimated lifetime energy cost savings? This serves two purposes: empowering and educating the public to make informed decisions and incentivising upstream suppliers to ensure that their equipment are compliant.

Moving on from compliance, I would like to ask about NEA's plans for enforcement.

The issue of who bears responsibility as the importer is particularly important when we consider how enforcement will operate in practice. If penalties are to shape behaviour, they must be understood in practice and calibrated relative to the upfront savings from non-compliant equipment. Enforcement should follow a clear sequence – closing the information gap, supporting compliance and then applying firm penalties.

Sir, I understand that clause 17 of the Bill empowers the Minister to make further transitional regulations that are necessary and expedient. I also note that the current saving and transitional provisions do not appear to provide any relief for SMEs which are facing new registration costs. Therefore, I would like to ask the Ministry to consider a transition period with fee support or waivers, especially for SMEs, consumers and first-time applicants.

Given that much of the current risk appears to arise from information gaps and layered procurement arrangements, I hope the Government will consider a stronger transition approach. This could include broader consultation and outreach, a temporary transition or regularisation window, and where appropriate, expedited support for SMEs that are willing to switch to compliant and more energy-efficient equipment.

In this regard, schemes, such as the Energy Efficiency Grant play an important role in supporting SMEs in this transition. In practice, an SME's decision may change when the support quantum and scope are taken into account, particularly if audit and reimbursement processes do not place pressure on immediate cash flows.

I would therefore suggest that such schemes can be further streamlined or enhanced to support affected SMEs. I note that Senior Minister of State, Finance, has already expanded this Energy Efficiency Grant to all sectors today. I would encourage the Ministry to consider further expanding Energy Efficiency Grant's scope to cover all regulated goods.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill serves Singapore’s goals of meeting our climate targets and paves our path for sustainable growth.

Energy efficiency is a quiet but important part of energy policy. It goes beyond regulating appliances. It is about managing Singapore’s electricity demand and strengthening our resilience to external energy shocks. Amidst ongoing geopolitical uncertainties and volatility in global energy markets, improving energy efficiency becomes even more important. Every unit of electricity we save reduces exposure to external energy shocks and builds towards our energy resilience.

However, I believe that this must also be balanced against the impact of regulations on the people. It is not sufficient for us to rely on regulations and expect the people to meet our energy efficiency goals. The Government and the people must work hand-in-hand in order to ensure that not only our climate targets and energy goals are met, but our economy continues to grow on a model of sustainable energy.

With this in mind, I support the Bill and look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications, particularly on how we can ensure that SMEs are supported to comply, even as we strengthen our energy resilience.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the objectives of this Bill. Extending our energy efficiency framework to cover goods imported for personal use is a logical and necessary step. This Bill will align all imported electronic goods with the energy efficiency standards and labelling requirements that already applied to goods supplied commercially in Singapore, ensuring a level playing field and giving consumers a consistent basis for informed purchasing decisions.

However, I wish to seek several clarifications from the Senior Minister of State on the enforcement architecture, the scope of Director-General's new powers and the question of interagency coordination, particularly between the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE), which oversees the industry and household sectors under this Act and the Ministry of Transport (MOT), which oversees the transport sector.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill creates a new prohibition on importing non-compliant regulated goods for personal use, but it is entirely silent on how this prohibition will be enforced at the border. This is not a minor operational detail. It goes to the heart of whether these amendments will have practical effect.

For commercial shipments, our existing regulatory infrastructure is well established. TradeNet declarations, licensed warehouses and customs checkpoints provide natural interception points, but the own use imports targeted by this Bill arrive through very different channels.

Consider the practical scenarios: a person orders a portable air-conditioning unit from an overseas e-commerce platform, and it arrives via international parcel post. A business owner drives across the Causeway with a piece of industrial equipment in the back of a van; a traveller returns from a trip with a new kitchen appliance in checked baggage. In none of these cases is there an obvious regulatory checkpoint at which compliance can be verified.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to address the following.

First, rather than building a new declaration regime from scratch, will the Ministry consider leveraging the trade information certificate framework under the regulation of Imports and Exports Act? That framework already provides the certifying matters relating to the import of goods and includes a provision allowing the Minister to prescribe additional certifiable methods. Energy efficiency compliance could be prescribed as one such matter, allowing importers of regulated goods to declare compliance through an existing system that Singapore Customs and traders are already familiar with.

Second, for goods arriving by post or courier, will the Ministry be working with Singapore Customs and Singapore Post to establish screening protocols. Will parcel manifest or trade description be used to flag potential non-compliant imports?

Third, for goods brought in by land through the checkpoints, what role will the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) play? Is it realistic to expect ICA officers, whose primary focus is immigration and security, to also screen for energy efficiency compliance?

Fourth, will enforcement be proactive through inspections and spot checks or reactive, relying on complaints and tip-offs. If the latter, the Bill's deterrent effect may be significantly limited. Without a credible enforcement framework, we risk creating a prohibition that exists on paper but is widely disregarded in practice. That outcome would undermine public confidence in the regulatory regime and create unfairness within compliant importers who bear the cost of registration and those who simply do not bother.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill significantly expands the discretionary powers of the Director-General of Environmental Protection. Under the new sections 13(2A) and 15(5), the Director-General may, at any time after registration or renewal, impose new conditions on or modify or revoke existing conditions of a registration. The Bill also grants the Director-General broad discretion under section 31B to grant or refuse waivers, based on whether there are good reasons to do so.

I acknowledge that the Bill includes procedural safeguards. The Director-General must give written notice of proposed conditions or modifications and allow registration holder to make written representations before a decision is made. There is also an appeal mechanism to the Minister under section 17. However, I wish to raise several points on the adequacy of these safeguards.

First, the powers to impose or modify conditions at any time is very broad. There is no requirement that conditions be related to the original purpose of the registration, no cap on the frequency of modifications and no requirement that conditions be proportionate.

Second, the Bill does not specify any timeframe within which the registration holder must be given to make representations. This is left entirely to the Director-General's discretion. In other legislation, the Healthcare Services Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and the Workplace Safety and Health Act, to name three, Parliament has seen fit to prescribe a minimum period, typically 14 days within which affected person may make representations or appeal. This Bill, by contrast, sets no such minimum.

Third, on a waiver mechanism under section 31B. The criterion of good reason is inherently subjective. I will ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry intends to publish guidelines, setting out the circumstances in which waivers will typically be considered, so that applicants have reasonably certainty and the regime is applied consistently across cases.

Fourth, will decisions of the Director-General, particularly refusals of waivers and impositions of conditions, be published or reported in any aggregated form. Transparency in decision making is essential to maintaining public and industry confidence in the regulatory regime.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my final point concerns the practical coordination required to make this Bill work.

The Energy Conservation Act is jointly administered by MSE, which oversees the industry and household sectors, and MOT, which oversees the transport sector. The Act is primarily enforced by NEA. This Bill's expansion to cover own use imports will necessarily engage many more Government agencies beyond this existing arrangement.

Enforcement at the border will require the active cooperation of Singapore Customs for commercial and postal shipments, the ICA for goods brought in at the land and air checkpoints and potentially, the Info-communications Media Development Authority for enforcement against online platforms and digital advertisements. For the industrial sector, there will also be a need for coordination with the Economic Development Board, which promotes industrial investment and the Energy Market Authority, which oversees broader energy sector.

Where a regulated good falls under both the household and transport sectors, for example, an electric vehicle charger imported for personal use, it is not immediately clear whether the importers' obligations fall under MSE's or MOT's purview, or both. The Bill does not address this. The Bill itself does not address inter-agency coordination. This is not unusual. Such matters are typically handled through administrative arrangements.

But given the breadth of the new regime, I would ask the Senior Minister of State to assure this Chamber that, first, there is a clear interagency coordination framework between MSE and MOT, as well as between NEA and other enforcement agencies with defined roles and responsibilities for each agency involved.

Second, that NEA will have adequate resources, both in terms of manpower and technical capabilities to administer the new registration, inspection and waiver processes for personal imports, which will be a significant expansion of its current workload. I note, however, that the Bill's closing statement declares that it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. That is difficult to comprehend with the substantial new administrative functions these amendments introduce.

Third, there will be a single point of contact on one stop service for importers, so that individuals and businesses are not shuttled between MSE, MOT, NEA, Singapore Customs and ICA, when trying to comply with the new requirements.

Fourth, for goods that may fall within the jurisdiction of both MSE and MOT, such as transport-related equipment imported for personal use, the Ministry will clarify which regime applies to avoid regulatory ambiguity or duplication.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, closing the regulatory gap for personal imports is the right thing to do for our energy conservation goals and for fair competition. My concerns are not with the Bill's objectives but with the practical details that will determine whether these amendments work on the ground, how we enforce at the border and how we safeguard against unchecked discretionary powers and how we coordinate across the many agencies involved.

I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's response to these points. Notwithstanding my queries and clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking in support of the amendment to the Energy Conservation Bill.

Strengthening energy efficiency remains an important pillar in Singapore's energy transition. This is not new, because since 2012, our approach rested on two sensible ideas. First, to set minimum standards for energy performance; and second, to help consumers, like you and I, with clearer information through energy labelling so that households and businesses can make better purchasing decisions.

This Bill now takes the next step in this journey. It closes an increasingly important gap by extending the regime to regulated goods imported by end users for their own use, and it also gives the Government stronger tools to deal with non-compliant advertisement of regulated goods that are accessible in Singapore, including the online space. Hence, I support that direction. However, I would like to raise four broad concerns.

First, the ordinary layperson does not think of himself or herself as an importer when they purchase goods from overseas to Singapore. Second, the current user journey to register makes it difficult for those who are not confident in English. Third, I wonder whether if it is time to review the volume of information on the energy label. Lastly, the challenges in online platform implementation.

My first point is about how we secure support and buy-in of individual customers or consumers. Under this Bill, a person who imports certain regulated goods for his or her own use will have to grapple with the framework that was previously once used for commercial supply lines into Singapore's market. I note that during a public consultation, one suggestion was to require end users, which is consumers, like myself, to buy goods only from local suppliers since local suppliers may be better place to handle compliance requirements.

The Government did not take that route, and I think that is sensible. We should preserve consumer choice so long as compliance framework applies consistently. In the same vein, my remarks pertain mainly to ensure that reporting and compliance regime is workable and understandable for the ordinary consumer. Let me explain why.

The ordinary layperson does not think of himself or herself as an importer, in any formal sense. To many, they are simply just thinking they are making a purchase. This is especially so because some Singaporeans do cross over the Causeway to buy household appliances because of lower prices. Some might even organise trips with their friends across the causeway to shop for items for their Build-To-Order flats. In such cases, such consumers are unlikely to perceive themselves as importing a regulated goods, subjecting to registration or compliance requirement in the first instance.

So, in this regard, I would like to ask how the Ministry intends to communicate these requirements to the public. In responding to how, I am keen to understand how various personas have been considered. As a matter of fact, not every Singapore resident will be following this view, or even looking at this response that I am making, and many might not even realise that if they make purchase of certain regulated goods from overseas for their own use, there might be a need for registration or compliance requirement that applies to them. So, public education matters a great deal.

Related to this, it might be helpful if the Ministry can also publicly clarify upfront the compliance cost implication, for instance, the waiving of cost for end users and $80 cost per model of regulated goods applied to local suppliers. I note that the Bill also extends waiver mechanism to persons who intends to import for his or her own use and is unable to comply with a requirement in a particular case, which is reflected in a proposed amendment to section 31B. But again, such mechanism only helps if a person knows that it exists, understands what it may be applied to and knows how to register.

This brings me to my second point, which is the accessibility of user journey. I know this may sound operational, but operational details matter because they shape whether people comply easily or give up along the way. If the registration journey is mainly online, then we should think carefully about who are likely the users. When I tried to visit the registration page, my experience is one that the information on that registration page today, it is mainly in English.

While some might be comfortable using their smartphones, not all will be fully comfortable navigating an English-only or English-heavy website. There are those who are not deterred by the policy itself, but because of the number of steps they have to go through, they give up halfway. And I am sure most of us at some point in our life would have experienced this because you have to fin so many steps or do many things. Halfway, you decide you do not want to continue that journey of application.

In short, what I am really trying to say is that have we designed this portal with various personas in mind? I would like to ask whether the Ministry can review the user journey through that lens that I mentioned earlier, and with the understanding that what was once primarily business-centric is now something expected to impact certain individual consumers, households, to some extent?

So, questions worth asking: can the process be made simpler? Can there be clearer step-by-step guidance? Can more language support be provided? Can there be automatic reminders or notification if renewal is required for certain registration? Furthermore, some of our residents who are not digitally savvy, might purchase non-bulky instantaneous water heater or mini refrigerator from overseas as part of their shopping. Would there be a possibility that they can register in person simply because they are not digitally confident? If so, could MSE or NEA share what would the process look like? This will go a long way in enabling businesses and individuals to comply with more robust reporting more seamlessly.

You see, in policy design, reducing friction is not a soft issue. It is part of what makes policy workable. If we want wider compliance, then the process must be intuitive and low friction as possible.

My third point is on the mandatory energy labelling scheme or easily known as the sticker that you see on the fridge that you need to buy from Best Denki. When you buy the fridge from Best Denki, that sticker that you see. This familiar tick has served important purpose by making energy efficiency more visible to consumers. But I think it is also fair to ask whether the current presentation remains useful and usable as it should be, and whether there should be further improvement moving forward. I understand in my observation of various stickers, there are at least 10 sets of information in practice and what consumers first notice are the ticks.

Other information might be valuable, for example, annual energy consumption or estimated cost. But I also wonder for those that have very small font size, whether these information are equally important in influencing purchasing decision?

So, against this backdrop, I would like to ask the Ministry whether it has reviewed how consumers actually interpret such labelling and perhaps consider a more robust means of understanding what people focus on when they look at the label.

So, questions to ask ourselves would be these: what information do they notice? What do they understand? What influence their choice? More broadly, what is the behavioural objective of the label today? Is it to mainly to help the uncle and auntie who is wondering around Best Denki or Gain City, to nudge them towards a higher efficiency option within that compliant range? If so, do we really need at least 10 sets of information on that sticker? This matters because the label is only effective, it is not only just rich in information, but it should be useful in helping to shape decision.

My last point is about online advertising provision. I understand the need for stronger powers in this space as purchaser shifts online, it will make little sense to just only tighten offline while leaving major loopholes in the digital market space.

This is why I also appreciate that NEA has started its clarification with some of the online platforms on the implementation concerns, but there are additional pointers that I would like to raise.

First, will there be a transition period for platforms to review and update their listing? Second, what type of platforms would likely be covered? Will the framework focus mainly on largely e-commerce operators or could it also extend to peer-to-peer market spaces, like Carousell, where individual users upload listings directly. Third, in the case where a platform holds large volumes of listing, what level of what levels of monitoring and due diligence will be expected of them, and what guidance or support might be provided for them so that they would comply easily?

These question matters because the line between platform responsibility, seller's responsibility and practical enforceability can be complex. We should want a regime that is effective, but also clear and proportionate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I support this Bill both as a member of the MSE Government Parliamentary Committee and also as a regular consumer, because it strengthens an important part of Singapore's energy efficiency framework. But if we want this framework to work well, we must pay attention to the last mile.

We should not only set sound legal rules, but also make compliance straightforward and simple for ordinary users. We should not only raise standards, but we should also make it easy for people to understand and what is expected of them. We should not only regulate for digital age, but also must ensure that implementation is practical for consumers, businesses and platforms alike.

If we get this balance right, we will make it easier for people to support Singapore's energy transition.