Debated in Parliament on 7 Apr 2026.
Debate resumed.
Ms Valerie Lee.
Mr Deputy Speaker, recent global developments remind us of a simple truth: energy is not just an economic input, it is matter of national resilience and survival. Conflicts, such as the Iran War, shows how quickly supply and prices can be disrupted.
For Singapore, with no natural resources and heavy reliance on energy imports, that risk is real and immediate. I also speak from experience working in an energy generation firm. Every day, we push to produce energy more efficiently and in ways that are cleaner and more cost effective. But supply is only half the equation. Demand matters just as much.
Previously in this House, I raised concerns about water loss, because every drop counts. The same applies here: every electron counts. Energy efficiency is not a technical detail. It is a national imperative.
Against this backdrop, this Bill is timely and necessary. It strengthens one of the most practical levers we have – using less energy and using it more efficiently.
Sir, I will highlight three strengths of the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill.
First, clause 5. This is a significant shift. Instead of focusing only on traditional suppliers, the Bill targets the party making the prohibited supply and this matters.
Today, purchasing patterns are changing. More goods are being imported directly by end users, especially through e-commerce. If left unaddressed, this creates a loophole where suppliers are regulated, but end users are not. This is not sustainable. Clause 5 closes the gap. It ensures that rules apply across the board. It prevents regulatory arbitrage and it creates a fairer, more level playing field while achieving the end goal.
Second, clause 7. This strengthens the regulatory regime by giving the Director-General powers to impose or modify conditions. In a fast-moving technological landscape, this flexibility is important. Standards must evolve and new evidence must be acted upon. A rigid system quickly becomes outdated. A flexible one stays relevant. This is a practical and forward-looking move.
Third, clause 16 on advertisements. Rules shape behaviour, but so does information. If advertisements mislead, consumers cannot make informed choices. If they are accurate, they reinforce the policy intent. Clear and consistent messaging matters. This provision helps align consumer behaviour with our energy goals.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as such, I support the direction of the Bill, but I have several clarifications.
First, on business impact. Compliance is not cost-free. Firms, especially SMEs, may need to upgrade equipment or change processes. While I appreciate that the overall life-cycle cost is potentially lower, there are real, upfront costs. Can the Ministry elaborate on whether there will be more targeted support, transitional assistance, or differentiated timelines beyond the current scheme for smaller firms? We should avoid a situation where the burden falls disproportionately on those least able to bear it, especially in this business climate.
Second, on cost pass-through. Higher compliance costs may be passed on to consumers, and this is a real risk. At a time of cost pressures, households will feel this. Has the Ministry sized this impact? And if substantial, how does the Ministry intend to mitigate this and ensure that the transition remains fair and inclusive?
Third, on regulatory certainty. Yes, clause 7 gives flexibility, but flexibility can also create uncertainty. Businesses need clarity to plan investments. Can the Ministry provide greater clarity as to when will conditions be modified, and will there be notice periods or consultation? Greater predictability will give businesses the confidence to invest and comply.
Fourth, on import trends. The Bill addresses direct imports, currently estimated at less than 10%. But if we do nothing, what does that number become? And what would that mean for our overall energy efficiency outcomes? Understanding this trajectory will help us assess the scale and urgency of the problem.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a necessary step forward. It closes gaps. It strengthens enforcement and it reinforces the importance of efficiency. But the transition will not be costless. We must manage the short-term impact on businesses. We must cushion households. And we must provide clarity to those affected. If we get this balance right, we will do more than just improve efficiency. We will build trust. And we will move forward together towards a more sustainable future where everyone plays a part because in the end, this is not just about regulation. It is about resilience. It is about using what we have wisely, efficiently and responsibly. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.
Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): I support the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2026.
Recently, I spoke with a SME owner in the logistics industry about the impact of recent energy price fluctuations on business operations. He told me that whilst rising fuel prices do indeed increase costs, he was more concerned about something else – if energy supply becomes unstable, businesses might not even be able to obtain the energy needed for basic operations.
In other words, in an era full of geopolitical uncertainty, the greatest risk businesses face is often not merely price increases, but the possibility that operations could be forced to halt once supply is disrupted.
This reminds us that, for Singapore, energy issues are not merely about pricing but are fundamentally related to national resilience, stable business operations and long-term economic competitiveness.
As an old saying goes: "Prepare for rainy days to ensure steady progress." In today's constantly changing global energy landscape, improving energy efficiency is itself an important way to strengthen national resilience.
Energy efficiency remains one of Singapore's most pragmatic and cost-effective approaches to strengthening energy security and fulfilling climate commitments. As a highly urbanised country with limited land and resources, Singapore depends on imports for over 95% of its energy. At the same time, energy-related activities are also the main source of our nation's carbon emissions.
This means that every unit of energy we save not only reduces emissions, but also reduces dependence on imported energy, thereby enhancing overall national resilience.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the focus of this Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill is to further refine our existing energy efficiency regulatory framework, particularly in the regulation of regulated goods. Simply put, the core purpose of this Bill is to ensure that all relevant equipment, whether for sale or imported by businesses for their own use, must comply with energy efficiency standards.
First, closing regulatory gaps to ensure consistent rules.
Previously, if businesses sell equipment, they have to comply with energy efficiency standards but if they directly import equipment for their own use, in certain circumstances, they might not necessarily be fully covered by the original regulatory system. This is like a competition where some people enter through the main gate whilst others slip in through a side entrance. Ultimately, those who follow the rules end up at a disadvantage and the system loses credibility.
Through this amendment, regardless of whether equipment is for sale or own use, as long as it falls under regulated products, it must comply with the same energy efficiency standards. This helps ensure all companies compete under the same rules and maintains market fairness.
Second, strengthening registration and compliance mechanisms.
This Bill further refines the registration system for regulated products. Importers or manufacturers must complete registration procedures when supplying or importing relevant equipment and ensure products meet energy efficiency requirements.
If we compare the energy efficiency system to traffic rules, then the registration system is like vehicle registration. Only by clearly knowing what equipment is in use and who introduced it to the market can regulatory authorities ensure rules are implemented. Otherwise, even the best standards would be difficult to enforce without clear registration and regulatory mechanisms.
Third, driving businesses to continuously improve energy efficiency.
Energy technology is developing rapidly. Equipment considered efficient 10 years ago may no longer be the best choice today. For example, some older air conditioning systems or industrial equipment can often significantly reduce energy consumption whilst lowering operating costs through technological updates or operational optimisation.
From a business point of view, this is quite easy to understand. For the same type of equipment, some operate more efficiently whilst others are clearly more power-hungry. Over time, the difference becomes not just a technical issue but a real cost difference. By strengthening the regulatory framework, this Bill encourages businesses to regularly review equipment and systems and gradually adopt more efficient technologies.
Deputy Speaker, energy efficiency is not merely an environmental responsibility but also an economic opportunity.
For businesses, energy is often one of the important operating costs. Improving energy efficiency can reduce costs, enhance productivity and reduce enterprise risk when facing international energy price fluctuations.
With the world gradually moving towards a low-carbon economy, energy efficiency will also become an important factor in companies’ international competitiveness. Therefore, improving energy efficiency both aligns with sustainable development goals and helps strengthen economic competitiveness.
Deputy Speaker, whilst I support the direction of this Bill, I would also like to raise three questions and suggestions for the government's consideration.
First, regarding implementation and regulatory mechanisms.
The effectiveness of regulations depends on implementation. Since this Bill expands the regulatory scope of regulated products, may I ask the Minister how the Government will ensure enterprises truly comply with these requirements when importing and using relevant equipment?
For example, if two companies use similar equipment, one completes registration according to regulations and ensures compliance with energy efficiency standards whilst another imports equipment through different channels without truly being covered by regulation, then the rule-abiding company actually bears higher compliance costs. In the long run, this not only undermines system credibility but also affects market fairness.
Therefore, I suggest the Government consider strengthening spot checks and independent assessment mechanisms to ensure energy efficiency standards can be implemented in real operations.
Second, regarding assistance to enterprises, particularly SMEs, in equipment upgrades.
Many energy-saving measures require companies to make upfront investments in equipment updates or system optimisation. Large enterprises usually have the resources to carry out these upgrades, but SMEs may face financial and technical constraints. For example, even if a SME knows that old equipment consumes more energy, it may not be able to replace it immediately. The reason is not that it is unwilling to improve efficiency but that equipment updates often involve one-time investment.
Therefore, may I ask the Minister whether the Government plans to further strengthen support programmes or financing mechanisms to assist businesses in adopting more efficient equipment?
Third, regarding cultivating energy management professional capabilities.
As energy systems become increasingly complex, energy management is gradually becoming a field requiring professional skills, including capabilities in data analysis, system optimisation and industrial process management. In other words, even if businesses purchase efficient equipment, without professional personnel to analyse energy consumption data and optimise operating methods, the equipment's efficiency may not be fully realised.
Therefore, I suggest the Government strengthen cooperation between industry and higher education institutions to develop more professional courses in energy efficiency and energy management, to ensure businesses can obtain the talent they need.
Deputy Speaker, energy efficiency may not be as eye-catching as new energy technologies, but it remains one of our most direct and cost-effective solutions. Every unit of energy we save means reduced imports, reduced power generation demand, lower costs and reduced carbon emissions. This not only enhances national resilience but also improves overall economic efficiency.
Therefore, the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill is pragmatic and necessary progress. It refines the regulatory framework, strengthens system implementation, and drives businesses to continuously improve energy efficiency. For these reasons, I support this Bill.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill strengthens Singapore's energy efficiency framework by closing regulatory gaps and ensuring that regulated goods, whether supplied in the market or imported for own use, meet the required energy efficiency standards.
By enhancing product registration, strengthening compliance mechanisms and encouraging continuous improvements in energy systems, the Bill helps ensure that energy efficiency standards are applied more consistently across industries.
Energy efficiency remains one of the most practical and cost-effective ways for Singapore to enhance energy security, reduce emissions and strengthen long-term economic competitiveness. For these reasons, I support the Bill.
That was a very strong and passionate speech in Chinese. Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill.
This amendment is both timely and necessary. Around 40% of Singapore's greenhouse gas emissions are linked to electricity consumption. With the ongoing Middle East conflict driving volatility in global energy supply and prices, energy efficiency is not just about sustainability. It is a critical pillar of Singapore's energy resilience. If we are serious about our net-zero ambitions and resilience, then energy efficiency must remain a foundational pillar of our strategy.
This Bill strengthens the Energy Conservation Act by closing an important gap. Today, MEPS and labelling requirements apply mainly to goods supplied locally. The amendment now extends these requirements to goods imported for a person's own use.
I support the intent of the Bill but would like to raise several implementation considerations.
First, on enforcement. A key question is how enforcement will work in practice, particularly for small-scale imports. Increasingly, individuals and small businesses procure equipment through e-commerce platforms and parcel shipments. While each import may be small, the cumulative impact could be significant. Given the scale and speed of online commerce, could the Minister clarify whether NEA has sufficient enforcement capacity, and how it intends to prioritise and operationalise these expanded responsibilities?
Could the Senior Minister of State clarify how enforcement will be carried out for imports intended for a person's own use, particularly through online marketplaces or small parcel deliveries? Will there be thresholds below which enforcement becomes impractical and, if so, how do we ensure that this does not create loopholes?
Related to this, there may be scope to integrate enforcement across agencies. For example, in sectors, such as F&B, where businesses import equipment directly, could existing inspection regimes, such as Singapore Food Agency's inspections for licensing, also incorporate checks on energy efficiency compliance and registration? This would reduce duplication of enforcement resources and strengthen on-the-ground compliance.
Second, on regulatory burden and impact on businesses. Under the proposed framework, each importer is required to register regulated goods, even if the same product has already been registered by another importer. Could this create unnecessary duplication and administrative burden, particularly for SMEs importing small quantities?
More broadly, many SMEs import specialised equipment for their own operations. Will there be a simplified compliance pathway for low-volume importers or SMEs, so that compliance costs remain proportionate and do not become a barrier to business operations?
Third, on consumer awareness and the digital marketplace. As more consumers purchase appliances online, they may unknowingly buy non-compliant products. Will the Government consider strengthening consumer education and requiring clear visibility of energy efficiency labelling on online marketplaces, for example, by mandating the display of Singapore energy labels in listings?
Fourth, on waivers and safeguards. The Bill allows for waivers where compliance with requirements may not be possible in specific cases. Could the Minister clarify the criteria and safeguards for granting such waivers, and how consistency will be ensured? It would be important to avoid unintended circumvention or uneven application across businesses.
Finally, on transition and unintended behaviours. I note that there will be a transition period before full implementation. Without appropriate safeguards, there may be a risk of front-loading less efficient equipment into the system.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment is a necessary step to strengthen the integrity of our energy efficiency framework. It closes an emerging gap, reinforces fairness and supports our broader energy transition. With the right attention to implementation, enforcement and business impact, I believe it will achieve its intended outcomes.
Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim.
Mr Deputy Speaker, energy efficiency remains a cornerstone of Singapore's sustainability and energy security strategy. As a resource-constrained nation that imports almost all of its energy, we must continue to treat efficiency not as an option, but as a necessity, both to manage costs and to meet our climate commitments.
Earlier, Members also touched on MEPS and MELS. In this regard, both MEPS and MELS are effective policy tools. MEPS play a critical role in removing less efficient products from the market. It sets the minimum level of energy efficiency that appliances must meet before they can even be sold in Singapore. In other words, if it wastes too much energy, it does not make the cut. As for MELS, as earlier mentioned by another Member, Best Denki was his choice, it is that that familiar "tick label" we see on our appliances. The more ticks, the more energy-efficient the product and the more we save on electricity bill. It helps us make smarter and more energy-efficient purchasing decisions.
Together, both MEPS and MELS have shaped market behaviour and raised overall energy performance standards.
The proposed extension of these frameworks to end-user imports is a logical and a necessary step. By ensuring that even goods imported for own use meet baseline efficiency standards, we strengthen the integrity of our regulatory regime and promote more responsible energy consumption across the board.
Sir, while I support the intent of these amendments, I am seeking clarification on several aspects relating to implementation and enforcement.
First, on the compliance framework and its practical implications. Under the proposed amendments, regulated goods imported for own use must be registered with NEA, meet MEPS requirements based on prescribed tests and, where applicable, be affixed with an energy label.
These are reasonable safeguards. However, they will inevitably introduce additional compliance steps for businesses and individuals. It is therefore important that implementation remains practical and proportionate. In particular, I would like to ask whether simplified or streamlined processes will be made available for SMEs as well as for individuals or businesses importing goods in small volumes.
Additionally, I urge the Government to consider creating a priority processing lane perhaps for SMEs that register products with energy ratings exceeding the current MEPS. By fast-tracking high-efficiency products, the Government would provide SMEs with a competitive edge over larger competitors. Without such accommodations, we risk placing a disproportionate burden on smaller players.
I would also appreciate clarification on how the Government intends to ensure compliance in respect of online marketplaces, where many such transactions increasingly take place.
This brings me to my second point: the role of online platforms and enforcement. Given the significant presence of e-commerce in our daily lives, enforcement cannot rely solely on downstream checks. I urge the Government to consider placing clear obligations on platform operators to prevent the listing of non-compliant products in the first place. In addition, stronger communication mechanisms between regulators and platform providers will be necessary to ensure that non-compliant listings are swiftly identified and removed. Without such upstream measures, enforcement risks becoming reactive rather than preventive.
Third, on balancing sustainability with cost considerations. For these measures to gain broad-based support, we must recognise that higher-efficiency products often come with higher upfront costs. While such products typically deliver long-term savings through reduced energy consumption, the initial price difference will still pose a barrier, particularly for households and SMEs. To address this, the Government could consider targeted support measures, increase targeted support measures, such as rebates, grants or co-funding schemes to help defray upfront costs and make energy-efficient appliances more accessible.
In addition, bulk procurement programmes and partnerships with retailers could help lower prices and encourage wider adoption, especially among SMEs. At the same time, public education remains key. Continued efforts to raise awareness of the long-term cost savings and environmental benefits of energy efficiency will help shift mindsets and strengthen public support. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): I fully support this amendment which is important for the long term and the current situation we are experiencing clearly demonstrates its importance.
However, to ensure that these measures receive broad support, the Government must acknowledge that energy-saving products that are highly efficient typically come with higher upfront costs. While such products will result in long-term savings through lower energy consumption, the initial price difference can still be a barrier and obstacle, especially for the low-income as well as small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
Therefore, to address this matter, the Government should consider support measures, such as rebates, grants or co-financing schemes, to help reduce upfront costs, which are essentially efforts to ensure energy-efficient equipment is more accessible to Singaporeans and businesses.
Additionally, collaboration with businesses can also help lower prices and encourage wider adoption, particularly among SMEs.
At the same time, public education is also very important. Continuous efforts to increase awareness and understanding about long-term cost savings and environmental benefits as well as prioritising energy efficiency will help change mindsets and strengthen community support.
Therefore, it is important for the Government to expand its awareness campaigns by partnering with schools, social media as well as community organisations in various languages, to educate consumers from the young ones to senior citizens. Training for businesses can also play a role in providing clear explanations and instil confidence in consumers, and this should be conducted more frequently and thoroughly. With a more comprehensive and consistent approach, the level of public awareness can be enhanced.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the intention behind this Bill is sound and forward-looking. It reinforces Singapore's commitment to sustainability while safeguarding our energy security. Notwithstanding the clarifications, I support the Bill.
Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary, would you like to adjourn the debate?
PAPERCUTS