Debated in Parliament on 9 Sep 2026.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move* that "This House calls for the Government to enhance food resilience and support efforts to reduce food waste through partnerships with all of society, so as to ensure Singaporeans have access to affordable food supply amidst geopolitical uncertainties and climate-related risks."
*The Motion also stood in the names of Ms Valerie Lee, Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin and Mr Ng Shi Xuan on the Order Paper.
Food is close to the hearts of most Singaporeans. But our Food Story is an irony. Singapore is one of the richest countries in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, producing high-value semi-conductor chips, pharmaceuticals and petroleum products. But a basic necessity – food – we can only produce less than 10%.
On the one hand, this is merely the free market functioning at its best – we do what we are good at and we import what we cannot grow ourselves. Thanks to the invisible hand, Singapore imports more than 90% of our food from more than 180 countries all over the world, incurring significant freight costs and carbon footprint along the way. As a result, a country which can lay claim to only 10% of its food production is perceived as one of the most food-secure countries in the world.
However, from the heights of this false security, we throw away some 800,000 tonnes of food every year. This is not just a waste of food, we waste further resources in the process of wasting – both in transportation and incineration. This is the sum total of our peculiar, recondite irony. Meanwhile, food prices have been increasing, especially with the ongoing Middle East conflict. With the increase in fuel cost, utility fees, shortage in fertilizers and El Nino affecting crop yields, we can expect a further increase in food prices in the coming months.
Singaporeans are becoming anxious about rising food costs, especially for big families living on a modest income. Unfortunately, the recently disbursed Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers will not be sufficient to offset the higher costs in the long run.
What is the lesson from Singapore's Food Story? An easy moral is something like this: We are importing excessively, throwing away too much edible food and in turn, contributing to higher food prices. We would be better off producing more food locally, wasting less and keeping food prices more affordable. This is a stark but false narrative.
As a free market, we must respect how business price in decisions, including whether and how much to import. But as a country, we must make sure that we have some capacity to produce food. More importantly, that all of us, rich or poor, have access to safe, fresh and affordable food at all times. I ask not for caviar and artichokes, but for fresh fruit, fish and eggs. Not for air-flown or imports from exotic places, but that all be nutritious and safe to eat.
The unstable equilibrium in our food story comes not from the poor working of the market, but from the institutions and architecture of food supply and consumption. We need a two-step solution: as a matter of policy, we need a more coordinated food import policy and food redistribution ecosystem; as a society, we need to leverage on the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act to redistribute more rescued food, prepare healthy meals for the low-income families and seniors, reduce their food expenses and keep them well-nourished. Together, these add up to a holistic national food strategy.
In this Motion, we will offer suggestions on how we can strengthen our food ecosystem, improve food circularity and also ensure food affordability for all Singaporeans, both in peace time and during times of geopolitical uncertainty and climate-related risks.
My colleagues in the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), who are also co-sponsors of this Motion, Ms Nadia Samdin, Ms Valerie Lee and Mr Ng Shi Xuan, will share their views on local food production, food supply chain and logistics and alternative proteins production respectively.
To be fair, in recent years, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has worked hard to help our local farms become more productive, by using more advanced farming technologies and setting up the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation (SAFEF) Framework to ensure food quality, safety and sustainability, as well as marketing schemes, such as SG Fresh Produce to encourage off-take.
SFA has recently redefined its original "30 by 30" goal announced in 2019 with more specific targets of producing locally – 20% greens and 30% seafood and eggs consumed by 2035. To supplement our local food production, SFA has also strengthened and increased our food supplies via stockpiling, deepening international partnerships and diversifying food sources.
My question here is stark: are we cutting ourselves too thin with less than 10% self-sufficiency in food production rate? To better understand how our Food Story has evolved, we should look at how we first started.
During our nation-building years in the 1960s, the Government had to take a painful transformation to close many vegetable, pig, fish and chicken farms across Singapore, to clear land for flats and factories, to create homes and jobs for Singaporeans. At that time, there were about 20,000 farms, occupying 20% of our land, producing food for about 1.6 million people. Our food self-sufficiency rate was high, especially in poultry, eggs and pork.
Six decades later, we only have less than 200 farms, occupying 1% of our land and producing less than 10% of the food consumed by some six million people. Again, I ask – are we cutting ourselves too thin?
For context, in many land scarce, industrialised countries, domestic food production typically covers only about 50 to 80% of total food consumption, with the remainder met through imports. For instance, the self-sufficiency in food production rate in Japan is 50%; Switzerland is 54%; the United Kingdom (UK) is 60%; and the Netherlands is 65%. Of course, in a sense, this is a false comparison because these are countries with large rural areas while Singapore is a city state, one of the few city states in the world. We import food, we import water, land and all the factors of production that go into it. We had to close local farms to free up land for homes and jobs.
In 1960, Singapore's GDP per capita was only around $1,300. Today, we are one of the richest nations in the world, with a GDP per capita of around $130,000 – 100 times higher. I do not ask for us to travel back in time, that would be foolish and empty sentimentality. But I would like to ask, if we can recalibrate this incrementally, because we have lost much of our food production capability. Can we reclaim a morsel?
Today, we have four pillars of the Food Story. I concentrate on the second pillar – local production as a strategic buffer.
Would the Government consider Local Food Production capability as part of our Total Defence security? Just as we have spent billions of dollars over the past decades to build up our military defence capabilities, the Government may consider increasing our national Budget into building up our local food production capabilities. The Government should also help our local farmers mitigate the high land, manpower and utilities costs of local farming production and the aggregate demand for local farm produce. For instance, the Swiss federal government funds farming families to help them meet social and economic responsibilities, via direct payments, market support, structural and environmental grants, as well as food security measures.
In fact, in today's growing turbulent and uncertain world, we have experienced through the COVID-19 pandemic and witnessed in the protracted conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, where food supply chains and production capabilities can be unexpectedly disrupted. As the climate continues to warm, food production yields may also be massively affected. Hence, I propose that we review increasing Government support to boost our local food production and self-sufficiency rate to at least 30%.
My fellow GPC Member, Ms Nadia Samdin, will share her proposal on what the Government can do to better support our local farmers to manage the unique challenges that local farmers face in our land-scarce and high-costs city state. She will also share useful suggestions on how we can shift our approach from just "grow local" to building resilience within the region, which is timely, in view of the "food-secure future" being a key agenda as Singapore takes on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Chairmanship next year.
The biggest advantage of domestically-produced food supply is the avoidance of supply chain disruptions, carbon emissions and transportation costs, especially during a crisis. Fellow GPC member, Ms Valerie Lee, will share more about strengthening food supply chain resilience, by gaining better visibility of risks, building sufficient strategic logistics capacity and robust and circular systems to make the best use of food that is already within Singapore.
Next, we turn our attention to the second problem, which is food waste. Every tonne of food waste reduced means potentially one tonne less of food that needs to be produced or to be imported. Over the past five years, food waste in Singapore averaged 790,000 tonnes per year or 128 kilogrammes per capita, and contributes to 11% of total waste. The food recycling rate hovers at around 18%.
To solve the food waste problem meaningfully, we must first know how much food is imported and produced, the amount that is rescued and redistributed, the amount that is recycled and finally the amount that is disposed of. SFA does not publish the amount of food imported annually although they confirm that they import more than 90% of food consumed. In response to my Parliamentary Question filed for the July 2026 Sitting, MSE replied that their food waste statistics does not include the amount of food that is rescued and redistributed.
My point is that with numerous food suppliers importing food sources from more than 180 countries worldwide, without visibility and coordination of the total amount of food that is being imported, we could actually be importing way more than our 6.1 million population can consume.
I give an example of another resource that is also partially imported and also essential to life: water. Here, we know exactly how much we waste, at least along the water system of non-revenue water. We are one of the least wasteful countries in terms of water in the world. Our water loss is less than 5%. This compares with 30% globally and as high as 50% in some countries. Of course, we do not know how much households waste after that, but we at least have some idea of the network loss. We know exactly how much we produce and how much is delivered to each household.
The crux of the problem is that we have much poorer data for food. It is more decentralised, varied and a different type of good altogether. I will share a few proposals which would require community stakeholders and various public agencies to work closely together.
Firstly, SFA should connect existing food waste and import data sets already collected across different agencies to improve tracking and insights, using AI and data analytics tools. In addition, SFA should also track donation volumes by major food suppliers and incentivise them to donate the food items before expiry date.
I should emphasise that SFA's role is not to intervene in the free market, but to understand the magnitude of food waste and coordinate with the major food importers, such as major supermarket chains, food wholesale centres, big hotel and restaurant chains, and so on, to minimise food wastage. This gives us better data to work with. What is the supply and how much ends up on the plate of the final consumer.
Second, food is perishable and it is easier to just throw than to redistribute food. Hence, we unintentionally end up with a growing food waste problem, as we diversify food sources to supplement the meagre local food production. To make matters worse, the food importers would price in food that is not sold and to be disposed of. These business costs will inevitably lead to an increase in food prices too.
Hence, we need to create a more circular food ecosystem, so that as far as possible, uncooked food, such as fruits and vegetables, should be rescued and redistributed, unconsumed cooked food, such as buffet dishes, should be sold at a discounted price or given away; while post-consumption food or food scraps should be recycled into high caloric-value animal feeds or fertilizers that will contribute back to food production.
In recent years, several innovative solutions to reduce food wastage have been launched, by matching food and beverage (F&B) outlets offering unsold food items to consumers. Digital food sustainability platforms, such as Treatsure and Yindii, are digital apps that allow users to purchase unsold food at the end of a business day, at a highly discounted price. Consumers can benefit from substantial savings while enjoying fresh foods. Businesses can cover some business costs instead of incurring food waste removal costs.
Another food waste stewardship tech social enterprise, D2L, takes an end-to-end approach to food waste stewardship. D2L works directly with businesses to understand their food waste profile and uses technology and their community ecosystems to direct food and product waste from sources, such as retailers, malls, hotels, offices, food services and so on. Through redistribution, reuse and repurposing, the environmental, social and resource value of waste is maximised.
D2L also captures data throughout the food diversion process, including the quantity collected and the different diversion streams, which allows them to generate impact and diversion reports for businesses they work with, to support their environmental, social and governance (ESG), sustainability and other reporting needs. Since business launch in June 2023, D2L has diverted 1,100 tonnes of food waste. [Please refer to the hon Member's clarification later in the debate.]
FairPrice Group had introduced the IMPerfect Fellas Initiative since 2015, to sell imperfect but edible fruits and vegetables, bundled at a maximum of $2. This initiative diverts about 1,000 tonnes of produce from disposal every year.
To recycle post-consumption food waste, local startups, such as Ento and WasteMaster, work with malls and F&B businesses to collect post-consumption food waste and turn them into fish feed supplied to fish farms.
These are all good examples of how innovative young entrepreneurs who care deeply about the food waste problem, turn waste into treats or into fish feeds or fertilisers, in turn, closing the gap of food circularity.
I propose for the Government to support such start-ups with more seed funding, grants and tax rebates, to help them defray business costs and incentivise them to scale up faster and make a bigger social impact. I also propose the Government to incentivise companies to track the environmental and social impact of the method used to dispose food waste and reward the ones that generate the most positive impact. This will nudge businesses to consider not only the financial cost of disposal but make a holistic assessment of each food waste disposal option.
Third, we should give greater support to food charity groups, such as Food Bank, Food Rescue Sengkang and Fridge Restock Community, and so on. Collectively, these three food charities rescue about 2,400 tonnes of food annually which frees up capacity at the incineration plants.
For instance, in 2025, Food Rescue Sengkang diverted more than 1,000 tonnes of food from the incinerators and turned them into 3.21 million meals that served 312,000 families. FairPrice Group also runs a Market Place Programme with Food From the Heart, to redirect packaging-damaged and near expiry non-perishable store items for families in need or for beneficiaries in nursing homes. These organisations have been doing excellent work at the community level, mobilising large groups of volunteers to collect unsold food from the wholesale markets, supermarkets, bakeries and so on, and distributing the food items to communities and individuals who appreciate these donations. Most of these food charity groups rely on volunteers and donations to run their operations.
I propose that more recognition be given to these food charity groups so that they can continue to grow their volunteer base, scale up their efforts and help more communities across various parts of Singapore. Also, Government grants should be given to support these food charity groups to defray their operations and logistics expenses, as well as to incentivise more volunteers to come forward.
To further unlock the value of rescued food, we can turn them into fresh and healthy meals for our residents who may not be able to cook their own meals. These days, many seniors stay on their own and may buy meals from the nearby hawker centre or food court stalls, which tend to be high in oil and salt content. In recent years, rising malnutrition rates among older Singaporeans due to insufficient protein intake has become more common.
Former MSE GPC Chairman, Mr Louis Ng and I worked with numerous stakeholders and got the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill passed in Parliament two years ago. To take this further, beyond distributing rescued fresh food supplies, such as vegetables, eggs and rice, to households, these ingredients could be used to prepare nutritious and low-cost or even free meals for our communities. If food charity organisations, catering companies, community partners and community volunteers work together, we can prepare and deliver fresh and hot meals for seniors staying alone and low-income families living within our community.
In a free market, it is not possible to control food prices. However, this initiative would help to substantially lower food expenses for vulnerable groups and ensure they will always have access to affordable food. If the hot meals can be served at convenient venues, such as the Residents’ Network Centres, Active Ageing Centres or even places of worship in every neighbourhood, then we may be able to establish a nationwide community dining ecosystem. These community dining sessions are also opportunities for volunteers to engage the beneficiaries, as many seniors living alone suffer from loneliness.
I recently started a small-scale pilot for community dining for residents, called Happy Lunch @ Sembawang West, with the support from grassroots volunteers and community partners, such as Food Rescue Sengkang, and a few other food donors who care about food waste, food affordability, nutrition deficiency issues and are concerned about the vulnerable groups.
Freshly prepared and healthy lunches are served free to one hundred residents, every Monday and Friday, at our Residents' Network Centre. Residents, especially seniors, enjoy the convenience, the healthy and scrumptious dishes, as well as the company as they dine together. Happy Lunch is one example of how we can improve food sustainability and accessibility to affordable food, as well as strengthen emotional and physical health and community bonds, all at the same time.
I propose that MSE, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Social and Family Development jointly consider my proposal for a nation-wide community dining ecosystem and provide support to start more small-scale pilots across various towns. That way, we can ensure our fellow Singaporeans can always have access to fresh food that is affordable and nutritious, reduce their food expenses, while reducing food waste.
Indeed, nutritious food is especially important for the less privileged groups and seniors, in order for them to stay healthy. My fellow MSE GPC member, Mr Ng Shi Xuan, will also be sharing more in his speech, on strengthening protein security through technology and innovation. He will share how resilience can be enhanced with options, buffers, redundancy and insurance, so that Food Story 2 can be strengthened with local alternative protein production.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few points in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, currently, many people are feeling the pressure of rising food prices and are worried about it. This is due to external factors, like the situation in the Middle East, causing a shortage of agricultural fertilizers and hot weather affecting crop yields. Through this Motion, we are calling on the Government to strengthen food resilience and mobilise society to reduce food waste, making sure that people can still afford reasonably priced food despite geopolitical and climate risks.
The goal of this Motion is to tackle issues from the source, looking at the situation in a bigger, more strategic way to improve things overall. In the long run, it is about building a more comprehensive infrastructure and strategies to benefit both Singaporeans today and future generations. We are also urging the Government to rethink how to create a more coordinated food import policy and improve the food distribution system to fundamentally and comprehensively reduce food waste.
At the same time, we are asking the Government to explore more ways to boost the production capacity and commercial sustainability of local farming. We also hope the Government reviews the food import and distribution system to cut down on food waste. The Government should support and recognise food charity organisations that serve the community and rescue and redistribute over 2,000 tonnes of food each year, helping those in need spend less while encouraging the public to waste less food.
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, when the world is at war, when supply lines are at risk, when the climate has disrupted the natural cycles of crops, we know the fundamentals of our country's security are being challenged. And there is nothing more fundamental than food. Eating good food is the most basic human pleasure, and sharing a meal is the highest form of community and friendship. We must ensure that this daily human ritual is something to be greeted with delicious anticipation and peace of mind, not anxiety and precarity. I hope that this private Members' Motion will be a step in this direction. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to move.
Question proposed.
Ms Nadia Samdin.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. One of my clearest memories from the early days of COVID-19 was walking into a supermarket and seeing the near empty shelves. For a nation that loves food, we had to ask ourselves what happens if one day, there is not enough to feed our people.
Singapore thankfully came through that period well. Our supply chains remained broadly intact and our shelves were replenished. But the experience made us realise our dependencies on food systems far beyond our shores – systems increasingly vulnerable to geopolitical tensions, climate shocks and disruptions beyond our control.
Today, as a mother, I think about this not only in terms of disruptions which we have experienced, but the world our children will inherit. Our responsibility is not only to make sure food reaches our tables today, but to build a system that remains resilient when familiar assumptions no longer hold.
Singapore Food Story 2 broadens our approach to food resilience as a whole. I believe this is broadly the right strategic shift, but it also requires us to think more carefully about what resilience means in practice, especially for Grow Local.
I have three main observations.
If resilience is the objective, our scorecard should show where vulnerabilities remain. Sir, we should draw the right lessons from our previous "30 by 30" vision. While we had in 2019 set up an aspirational goal based on nutritional needs, circumstances have changed. That is not to say that the past few years were wasted – farm productivity has generally increased for vegetables, for seafood and for eggs. But productivity gains alone do not necessarily translate into a viable and resilient farming sector.
The desired outcome is sufficient and reliable access to essential food during disruption, with options and flexibility across different pillars. Grow Local alone cannot hard carry our food resilience strategy, thus our other pillars on stockpiling, partnerships and diversification. However, the number of countries we import from alone does not translate to resilience. We may import the same food item from several countries, but these countries could be exposed to similar disease outbreaks, weather patterns, or logistic routes.
Similarly at home, 10 farms may not necessarily give us 10 independent sources of resilience if they all depend on the same things – for example, electricity, water, feed and labour. Where many farms depend heavily on the same input, a shock to that input can become a shock to the whole pillar.
Alongside production volumes and number of sources, I would like to ask the Government how we monitor local food production's reliance on imported inputs, including seed, feed, fertiliser and energy, whether the concentration of these input dependencies is assessed and how this is factored into our local production targets. I would also like to ask if we consider some level of inputs such as fertiliser and feed as part of our stockpiling strategy, given that is necessary for our regenerative capability.
Second, Grow Local is a strategic capability and it should preserve options. Diversified imports and international partnerships protect us against important risks, but they cannot guarantee harvests, prevent climate shocks or create surpluses where none exist. In many countries, the farmer population is ageing as well. Local production remains the pillar Singapore can most directly build, maintain and activate. It also supports local businesses and our people.
If options and flexibility matter across our food strategy, this matters for Grow Local too. In the sense of diversity in how and what we grow; enough redundancy that one disruption does not disable the whole system; the ability to adapt; and continuity in capabilities that cannot simply be rebuilt overnight.
When "30 by 30" was developed, the Government estimated that an average vegetable farm in Singapore produced approximately 130 tonnes per hectare each year, whereas a high-tech farm could potentially produce more than 1,000 tonnes per hectare. In land scarce Singapore, controlled environments, hydroponics, aeroponics, automation and precision farming make sense. But different systems protect us against different risks. A controlled indoor farm may be less exposed to heat and rain, but more exposed to electricity prices, equipment failure or specialised inputs – we have indeed seen a number of high-tech farms shut down due to unsustainable costs. Protected soil-based or hybrid farming has a different vulnerability profile; aquaculture yet another.
To be clear, this is not an argument against technology. It is an ask if we should think about our farming sector as a portfolio of capabilities, rather than expecting every farm to optimise towards the same model. Agricultural land must understandably contribute meaningfully to production. But can there also be room to better support different categories of farms assessed at a portfolio level including some community-based, smaller or more diverse farms assessed not only on tonnes per hectare, but on resilience value through different crops, species and methods, experimentation, training or preservation of agriculture or aquaculture capability?
The next part of my speech focuses on making farms more viable and valuable. Our cost structures should align with the capability we ask farms to build and maintain. Today, they may work the other way.
Property tax is one example. Green Harvest is a two-hectare farm with a large automated hydroponic glass greenhouse system, producing up to 4,000 kilogrammes of leafy vegetables a day. Today, fixed improvements such as Green Harvest’s covered greenhouses count as gross floor area (GFA) and forms part of the physical improvements reflected in Annual Value. Could such fixtures be given the same GFA exemption as the area shadowed by solar panels for example. And given the important work farms do in food resilience, could property tax treatment of qualifying productive agriculture infrastructure be reviewed so that it does not work against our own food resilience objectives.
Second, controlled environments can insulate production from climate risks but can increase exposure to electricity costs. When prices rise sharply, farms cannot simply stop lighting, cooling, pumping without affecting production. The Government now supports installation of energy-efficient technology. Could we look beyond to considering energy resilience as part of agricultural land for example supporting onsite solar where feasible and meaningful, storage, passive cooling and back-up arrangements? And during exceptional energy-price shocks, could temporary targeted support be considered for strategically important production, particularly where farms have already taken reasonable steps to energy efficient?
More broadly, should our support framework consider not only what it costs to transform a farm, but what it takes to keep useful production capability viable through exceptional periods of cost pressure? This will provide farms with some level of assurance as they contribute towards national priorities.
Land presents a different challenge. In 2014, 62 farms in Lim Chu Kang were affected by plans to convert farmland for military training, as defence land elsewhere was released for Tengah. Some relocated or transformed; others eventually left farming altogether.
Uncle William's quail farm did not secure the replacement quail-farming plots offered in 2018 and eventually ceased operations after 69 years. Fire Flies Health Farm closed after more than two decades. Jurong Frog Farm also returned its Lim Chu Kang site.
This year, Government announced that land in northern Lim Chu Kang currently designated for defence will instead be re-allocated for future agriculture, while agricultural land in southern Lim Chu Kang will eventually be re-purposed for defence.
Sir, Singaporeans understand the need for defence as a priority and do not second-guess the decisions. However, while land-use plans can change and be rezoned; farming capability is much harder to recreate once it has disappeared.
Where future land needs remain uncertain, can our planning scenarios better account for the cost of winding down agricultural capability too early? And where farms ultimately have to exit, could transition support recognise not only another plot, but the costs of winding down or relocating productive systems, and preserving some useful capability?
Some southern Lim Chu Kang tenures expire soon in 2026 and 2027. While I understand that necessary re-instatement works for the future defence use may begin only from 2030. I understand that extensions can be considered case by case. Where land has been designated for a future use whose works begin sometime later, could there be a clearer framework for interim farm use, rather than leaving it unused?
I would also like to ask for an update of the overall Lim Chu Kang masterplan and the Agri-Food Innovation Park.
For many farmers, dependable offtake can be a challenge. Campaigns on SG Produce will only go so far, especially as many are cost conscious. Procurement models within supermarkets as well may unknowingly bind producers and lead to food waste if they do not allow for pricing flexibility.
While Singapore must honour our international commitments including to the World Trade Organization (WTO), can we better recognise that local production carries resilience value? For public and/or institutional procurement of fresh produce, how can we set appropriate requirements around continuity, emergency readiness or reliable production capability, as these are important for our food security?
I would also like to ask how we can better support Singapore farmers to capture more value from what they produce, to improve their access to more markets beyond the fresh produce shelf. For example, homegrown enterprise, the Local Farm, works with local farms such as Yili and Hay Dairies, as well as local gelato maker Papitto Gelato on flavours such as round spinach and goat milk chocolate.
This creates new ways for local produce to reach consumers and generate demand. Its Farmpack for Good initiative also grows demand that also supports communities in need. It is also exploring research and development (R&D) opportunities connecting research institutions, farmers and food makers, with a view to turning promising research into products and market opportunities. Can we support more efforts like these and build a more systemic pathway around our farms – from produce and research, to products, markets and community impact? While individual farms may not always have scale on their own, could some of that scale be built around our farms instead?
Sir, Grow Local is also about people. Please allow me to continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, for the generations of Singaporeans before us, the connection with food was much closer to everyday life. In the kampungs, some fished, grew crops, kept chickens or tended coconut trees. Our world has changed rapidly and we cannot return to the way of life we had in the past. But there is still knowledge gained through years of experience, such as understanding our weather patterns, our land and our waters.
Today, our polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education offer courses in modern agriculture, aquaculture and agrifood technology. To what extent have these programmes helped build the capabilities of our local farms? How many graduates from these programmes eventually enter the agriculture sector? Can we connect students and newer farmers more deliberately with experienced practitioners, so that our agritech capabilities can be built on the knowledge and experience accumulated over many years, rather than replace them?
Today, more than 90% of our food is imported from overseas. As the Malay saying goes, "tak kenal maka tak cinta", we cannot appreciate what we do not know. In modern life, our children increasingly have less understanding of how the food on our tables is produced. For their generation, I hope they will not only have enough food to fill their stomachs, but also know where their food comes from, appreciate the efforts behind it and avoid food wastage.
(In English): A volunteer once told me he asked his young grandchild where chicken came from. Her innocent answer: the supermarket.
Not wrong. But in a country importing more than 90% of its food, retaining some living connection with how food is produced is not simply nostalgia. It builds food literacy, respect for the systems and people behind our food and is also part of tackling food waste.
To this end, one of our Residents' Network in Cheng San which also runs a community garden with an active harvest, has started designing a Little Food Heroes programme about growing goodness, exposing younger children to food security concepts and letting them experience activities, such as composting.
Third, building resilience with the region. Sir, our diversification efforts also depend on the production systems around the world, where climate pressures are growing and farming populations are ageing. As Singapore prepares to chair the ASEAN in 2027, practical regional food resilience can be a meaningful priority for our region. Singapore brings strengths in food science innovation, financing, logistics, standards; our neighbours have agricultural expertise and production capacity. For example, the Singapore-Johor-Riau growth triangle or the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone offer possible testbeds. Could Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, explore a small number of mutually beneficial agri-food pilots in climate-resilient production, cold chain solutions, research and demonstration or green lanes for more efficient movement of time-sensitive food where regulatory requirements are met? How can we better share data on climate patterns and other information that will overall affect our region's food supply?
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore will likely always source for much of our food beyond our shores. That is part of being an open, connected economy that is land scarce. Our diversified supply networks as well as deep relationships, patiently built, remain a fundamental pillar. However, this must sit alongside the capabilities that we retain and grow here. Grow Local must embrace technology without putting all our eggs in the same basket, pursue productivity without losing diversity and make difficult land choices without forgetting that farms, people and knowledge take time to build, and they are much harder to recreate once they are gone.
As a little red dot, one of our challenges to overcome has always been land. Our story has been shaped by the bold decisions we have made in response – to invest ahead of need, to build capabilities that others might have thought improbable and to find innovative ways to do more while working with our people.
In an uncertain world, I truly believe that strengthening Grow Local and supporting the farming ecosystem is one of the best choices we can make for our country's future. I thank all the farmers and stakeholders for sharing their feedback, their sweat, toil and passion in putting food on our tables.
Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Motion before the House calls on the Government to enhance food resilience and support efforts to reduce food waste through partnerships with all of society so as to ensure Singaporeans have access to affordable food supply amidst geopolitical uncertainties and climate-related risks.
Food resilience is an issue that deserves the attention of this House because food security is ultimately a matter of national security. The conflict involving Iran has heightened uncertainty over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and contributed to concerns over energy and fertiliser prices, increased food production costs as well as placed additional pressure on food importing economies across Asia.
Countries have been already doing what countries do in a crisis. They stockpile, they restrict exports, they look after their own. We saw it in 2022 when Malaysia banned chicken exports. Several countries have taken measures affecting fertiliser production and exports, reflecting growing pressures on global food supply chains. With climate change, such occurrences may become more frequent.
Singapore imports over 90% of its food. We spend billions on defence, on water security, on cybersecurity, because we understand that sovereignty depends on a certain level of preparedness. Yet when it comes to the fundamental need of putting food on our plates, we remain overwhelmingly dependent on the goodwill and stability of others.
Mr Deputy Speaker, food security is national security. It is time we treated it as such. I therefore support the Motion's call for stronger food resilience through partnerships across society. In my speech, I will focus on one important aspect of that effort – strengthening local food production, not merely as a substitute for import diversification, but as a critical pillar of our long-term resilience.
A case for a living buffer. Singapore does not have a domestic food source, so we will always need to import energy, but we can grow a domestic food source. If the Government accepts that building fuel reserves is costly but necessary, then building a stronger local food industry – the one buffer that we can actually grow on our own – deserves the same treatment.
I want to be clear. I am not arguing against import diversification. Singapore sources food from 187 countries. That is prudent and it should continue. However, in a major global disruption, countries may impose export restrictions, supply chains may be disrupted and critical inputs such as fertilisers may become more expensive. In such circumstances, diversification remains necessary, but may not be sufficient on its own.
This is precisely why Singapore Food Story 2 adopts a multi-pillared approach built on import diversification, global partnerships, stockpiling and local production.
At the Committee of Supply debates in March, Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad was candid about what went wrong. He told this House, "We have learnt many lessons from our '30 by 30' initiative. While it had successfully catalysed local production growth, mainly focusing on one pillar – Grow Local – left us vulnerable to the very disruptions that we sought to address...A single-pillar approach, no matter how ambitious, cannot provide the food supply resilience that Singapore needs."
Every source we diversify into is still subject to another country's political decisions to prioritise their own needs. Boosting local food production does not replace diversification, but it is a critical complement to add a layer to food security.
The demand bottleneck. This year, the Government has shifted targets from "30 by 30" by introducing the Singapore Food Story 2 – 20% of our fibre and 30% of our protein to be locally produced by 2035.
To be fair, the Government has invested a $309 million research fund, a $60 million technology transformation fund and $39.4 million in express grants to help farmers produce food. That investment was necessary. But growing food is only half the equation. You can help a farm build the most advanced indoor farm in the region and if no one buys the food at the price that covers the cost of growing it, the farm still goes under.
On this, Senior Minister of State Zaqy also said, "Consumers and large buyers, like supermarkets, are willing to pay a reasonable premium for fresher, pesticide-free local produce that comes with guaranteed supply certainty."
He is right. SFA's survey in 2020 found that 94% of Singaporeans were willing to buy local produce. Yet only 65% could even identify it when shopping. A YouGov survey in 2024 found that up to 59% of shoppers were simply neutral – not opposed to buying local, just without a reason to choose it over the cheaper import beside it on the shelf.
The willingness is there. We just need to harness it.
Consider what it actually takes for a Singaporean to buy local. You walk into a supermarket. Local produce is often not prominently differentiated or grouped together. There is no consistent placement. No easy way to know at a glance what is local. You might spot a locally grown kangkong, but it sits next to an imported head, which is 40% cheaper. For price-sensitive Singaporeans, the cheaper option goes into the basket.
Farm-to-table purchases in Singapore are still treated as something extraordinary – a weekend outing to a farmers' market, a feature in a lifestyle magazine, a one-off experience rather than a regular habit. Buying local should be normalised. It should be as ordinary and convenient as buying anything else. If we want Singaporeans to support local food, we need to make it easier for them to do so.
Farmers have voiced out their concerns in the media. Grace Lim of GroGrace, who recently closed her indoor farm despite producing 3,500 kilogrammes of greens a month, with just 6% wastage, told The Straits Time that selling vegetables in Singapore is harder than selling a Rolls Royce. Karthik Rajan of LivFresh, Victoria Yoong of Atlas Aquaculture, Kai Wong of Ah Hua Kelong, farmers across the industry from leafy greens to fish have all cited the same barrier in various interviews – price competitiveness against cheaper imports.
Recently, we saw the starkest illustration yet when FairPrice, our largest retailer with around 160 outlets, will delist locally grown vegetables from at least three farms – Artisan Green, Sg Veg Farms and Netafarm – as part of a category assortment refresh. When a farm's survival hinges on the single retailer's product review, it becomes a chokepoint that has a significant impact on their survival. An agri-food consultant quoted in the same report advised farms to diversify their sales channels while conceding that many lack the scale and bargaining power to do so. "A feast to famine cycle," in his words.
This encapsulates the volatile nature of our agricultural industry. Their leases are short and renewal terms opaque. Capital expenditure is high relative to returns, prices struggle to compete with imports. Manpower costs continue to climb and climate volatility threatens yields they cannot fully insure against.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in the spirit of this Motion's call for a whole-of-society partnership to strengthen food resilience, I would like to suggest two broad thrusts to better support our farmers. Together, they can reinforce local production and provide a stronger layer of food security for Singapore.
The first thrust – creating a common marketplace dedicated exclusively to locally produced food. This can be done via various channels. First, a nation-wide marketplace built and operated by the industry itself in the form of corporative, a federation such as SAFEF or a purpose-built non-profit.
Let me commend the work that SAFEF has already done with SG Farmers' Market and the efforts of SFA in building the SG Fresh Produce label. These are very encouraging starts. But these farmers' markets remain ad hoc events. What I am proposing is for this to be scaled up on a permanent and more structured basis – a co-op coordinated between our farmers and Singaporeans who want to support local produce, creating a sustainable ecosystem rather than a series of one-off events.
Singapore has over 100 wet markets across the island managed by the National Environment Agency (NEA), not to mention Housing and Development Board (HDB) neighbourhood shops with market shops and stalls too, already serving as daily touchpoints for hundreds of thousands of households buying fresh food. A dedicated local produce section or stall within each of these wet markets, coordinated by the cooperative, would embed local food into the daily routine of ordinary Singaporeans. That will move awareness to habit; and habit is what sustains an industry.
This is not without precedent. Japan had a similar initiative which began with 200 housewives buying milk. It is now a billion-dollar cooperative. France's AMAP network, an association for the maintenance of small-holder agriculture, started with a handful of consumer groups and now spans over 2,000 associations serving 320 consumers across 3,500 farms.
Mr Deputy Speaker, such partnerships with the consumers, retailers, farmers, industry associations and public agencies are precisely the kind of all-of-society effort that can strengthen resilience while supporting more sustainable food consumption patterns.
Second, to guaranteed offtake for farmers by requiring our largest supermarket chains and Singapore Armed Forces cookhouses to source a guaranteed minimum share of their fresh produce from local farms.
The current arrangement between local farms and major supermarkets in Singapore operates largely on a consignment basis. The farmer pays a listing fee to place produce on the shelf, the supermarket takes a commission on sales. Unsold produce may be to the farmers' loss, stale vegetables are replaced at the farmers' expense. The delistings from Fairprice recently illustrate this perfectly. The retailer bears no commitment, so farmers are subjected to a level of uncertainty and risk.
A shift away from the consignment model and towards purchase commitments where the supermarket buys an agreed quantity at an agreed price and takes ownership at the point of purchase would better support the viability of local farms.
This is not without precedent. Having major buyers dedicate even a small proportion of their fresh produce purchases to local farms would provide a critical layer of stability in an otherwise volatile industry.
For farmers, the value lies not merely in the volume purchase but in the certainty of demand. Such certainty enables them to invest higher and expand production with greater confidence, strengthening Singapore's food resilience over the long term. This translates to stability and certainty for farmers to invest, to hire and to plan beyond the next harvest. That certainty is worth more than any single grant. It may turn farming from a risky venture into a sustainable business.
In Brazil, federal law mandates that at least 30% of school meal expenditure must go to purchases from local family farmers. The programme serves 40 million children across 150,000 schools. The research is emphatic that the guarantee of a market caused farmers to expand, diversify and invest.
In New York, an executive order signed in 2023 directs state agencies to source 30% of their food from local farmers by 2027. In its first year, the state exceeded its interim target. These mandates apply to public institutions, not private retailers. The principle is still the same. When large buyers commit to local sourcing, farmers respond. Having major buyers dedicate even a small proportion of their fresh produce purchases to local farms can create stronger partnerships and stability in an otherwise volatile industry.
My second thrust: provide greater tax relief for farmers. There are three levers that I am proposing. The first lever is the most direct. Exempt all locally produced food carrying the SG Fresh Produce label from Goods and Services Tax (GST). While a 9% saving does not automatically guarantee food produced local produces a lower price than imports, the difference is not insignificant. Consider this: 250 grammes of local kangkong retails at at least $2.50. With the exemption, consumer pays $2.29. Imported kangkong is about, far lower, at $1.25 for 250 grammes. The gap is still there, but it narrows. But this narrowing repeated across thousands of transactions every week goes a long way towards lowering the barrier for consumers to choose local. Categorising this will not require any new mechanism, given that SG Fresh Produce label is already established. At current production levels, 8% of fibre and 26% of protein, the physical cost is likely to be modest relative to overall GST collections.
The second lever is reduce corporate tax rate or enhance tax concessions for SFA-licensed agricultural enterprises. Farming in Singapore is punishing on operating costs – land, energy, labour. The least the tax system can do is not to add to that burden. A reduced corporate tax rate for qualifying farms, enhanced capital allowances for agricultural equipment, or deductions for energy cost will lower the cost of production and to further close the price gap from the supply side.
This is not new either. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2020 report on taxation in agriculture confirms that tax concession specifically for agriculture are widespread. Among those, Ireland applies reduced income tax rate to farming income and offers stock relief, 25% deduction on the increased value of livestock and produce.
Singapore already uses corporate tax incentive to attract industries it considers strategically important, from fintech to biomedical sciences. If food security is truly national security, then local agriculture should qualify for the same treatment.
The third lever is to incorporate an income averaging mechanism for the agricultural sector. Farming income is inherently volatile. A disease outbreak, equipment failure, adverse weather, or spike in energy cost can turn a profitable year into a loss-making one. Allowing farmers to smooth taxable income across multiple years would help to moderate these fluctuations and improve business viability.
This is again, not an unusual idea. Variants of income averaging or income smoothing mechanisms already exist in jurisdictions such as the US, the UK, France and the Netherlands. Such schemes recognise the simple reality. Farming income is often cyclical, and tax system should take that volatility into account. The cost of these levers, the three levers I mentioned, is bounded by the size of the local produce market, which today is small. It grows only as local purchasing grows, which is to say it grows only when the policy is working.
Together, the levers will reduce the pricing of our local produce, encouraging a strong following by Singaporean buyers. Compare that to the hundreds of millions spent on the previous approach. Grants that funded farms which subsequently closed, technology subsidies that produced write downs, express funding for operations that entered liquidation. Those were bets on production. This is an investment in building habits on both sides of the counter.
Let me conclude. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Motion because food resilience ultimately depends on more than government policy alone. It requires consumers, retailers, farmers, industry associations and public agencies all pulling in the same direction. If we reach even half the revised fibre target, 10% locally produced instead of 20%, that is roughly half the total. That is roughly 50,000 tonnes of vegetables grown here every year that no export ban can touch, no shipping disruption can delay and no foreign government can withhold. The most resilient buffer against a food crisis is not just a warehouse full of rice. It is a country that grows its own food, or at least some of its own food, buys its own food, reduces unnecessary waste and builds the institutions, marketplaces and partnerships that make that possible.
Sir, 94% of Singaporeans say they are willing to support our farmers. I believe them. What they need is a channel, a reason and a system that makes the right choice the easier choice. Food security is national security. If we are serious about securing Singapore's food future, then we must strengthen the partnerships that connect producers, retailers, consumers and build resilience together one meal at a time.
Ms Valerie Lee.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to approach this Motion from the perspective of supply chains.
Singapore’s strategy of diversifying our food sources is the right one. We sourced food from more than 180 countries and regions in 2025. We grow local, we stockpile and we are strengthening our global partnerships. I do not think we should move away from this strategy but I think we should complement it. Diversification gives us options, but supply chain resilience determines whether those options can actually reach Singapore when we need them.
We all know that a chain is only as resilient as its weakest link. For food, that chain stretches from the farm or producer, through processing, shipping, ports, warehousing and cold storage, transportation and distribution, before it finally reaches our supermarkets and our tables.
So, my first suggestion is that, alongside diversifying our sources, we should strengthen the resilience of the supply chains that connect those sources to Singapore. Having more than 180 sources is valuable. But we should ask: do these sources depend on common shipping routes, ports, cold chain infrastructure, logistics providers? If several suppliers are affected by the same chokepoint, our diversification may not provide as much resilience as we expect.
This is where I see an opportunity to deepen our Global Partnerships. I would suggest that we think about G2G food partnerships in a slightly different way. The question should not only be: “Can this country supply us with food?” It should also be: “What options does this partnership give us when normal supply chains are disrupted?”
The Singapore-New Zealand Agreement on Trade in Essential Supplies is an interesting example. It establishes commitments around keeping essential supplies flowing during disruptions, including on export restrictions, movement of goods, information sharing and consultation. Our rice arrangements with Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia similarly give Singapore avenues to activate additional supplies when needed.
These are important because they create optionality. But I believe we can take this further. When we establish food partnerships, can we also think about the pathway? Can the necessary food-safety and regulatory approvals be activated quickly? Do we have alternative ports or shipping routes? Do we have the cold-chain and warehousing capacity to receive the additional supply? And can the private sector mobilise the transport and distribution capacity to move it? In other words: We should not only secure the food. We should design the pathway for the food to reach Singapore.
Our Food Pact with Australia is an interesting example of this broader approach. It includes cooperation on food trade and innovation, but also areas such as recognition of inspection systems, disease regionalisation and a simplified transshipment model for Australian red meat. These arrangements matter because they address different parts of the supply chain – regulatory, operational and logistical – rather than simply the commodity itself.
I think this is the direction in which our G2G partnerships can continue to evolve. A good food partnership should not simply be a promise of supply. It should be an architecture of options.
There is also another part of the supply chain that deserves more attention: capacity in the middle. We often talk about farms at the beginning of the chain and consumers at the end. But between the two are warehouses, cold stores, processing facilities, refrigerated trucks and distribution networks. Some of this capacity may be commercially optimised for normal times. But in a major disruption, Singapore may suddenly need additional storage, additional transport or additional processing capacity. So, I would urge the Government to work with industry to identify these strategic capabilities and consider whether there are ways to incentivise or share such capacity for contingency use.
I am an energy professional and I see useful parallels here. In energy, we do not just diversify our energy sources or maintain strategic stocks. These are insurance against disruptions but they are only useful because we also have the infrastructure and systems to connect supply and demand.
Our liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal, power grid, common regulatory standards and regional partnerships all enable energy to actually flow from producer to consumer both in peace time and in time of crisis. The same principle should apply to food. Diversifying our sources is important, but we also need the cold-chain, warehousing, transport, port infrastructure, regulatory flexibility and partnerships to ensure that food can actually move from producer to consumer when we need it most. Resilience is not just about having more sources. It is about having the infrastructure and connectivity to access those sources when it matters.
Mr Deputy Speaker, my second point is on food waste. Singapore generated about 790,000 tonnes of food waste in 2025, with a food recycling rate of around 18 percent. But I would like us to see food rescue not just as waste management. It is also supply recovery.
When edible food is thrown away, we are losing food that has already been grown, harvested, imported or produced, transported, stored and brought into Singapore. We have already spent resources securing that supply. If we can keep more of it within the human food chain, we are making better use of the supply we already have. I have seen this personally on the ground as a volunteer helping to start a food rescue movement in the west of Singapore. We saw very clearly that there was surplus food and there were people who needed it. But the difficult part was connecting the two quickly enough.
I have since followed the work of groups such as Food Rescue Sengkang and Fridge Restock Community. Food Rescue Sengkang shared that they have rescued more than 1,000 tonnes of food in 2025, which it estimated was equivalent to the needs of around 312,000 families. I would like to congratulate them and all their volunteers for this tremendous achievement. Fridge Restock Community similarly shared that they have completed 500 food rescues as of December last year.
These are extraordinary efforts by ordinary people. But they also show us where the system’s gaps are. Food rescue is extremely temporal. The surplus may only be available for a very short window. A supermarket or wholesaler may say, “I have this food available today.” The rescuer then needs to mobilise volunteers, a vehicle, perhaps refrigerated transport, collect the food, bring it somewhere, sort it and distribute it, often within hours.
And this is where the food rescuers have consistently told me that storage is one of their major challenges. Because even if they manage to rescue food today, they need somewhere appropriate to put it while they match it to the communities that need it.
So, I would like to suggest that we look at this more systematically. Could the Government work with the relevant agencies to identify suitable land or spaces that could be used for community food rescue storage, particularly where these can support existing rescue networks? It does not necessarily need to be permanent, large-scale warehouses. There may be opportunities for suitable interim spaces, shared facilities or under-utilised areas that can be adapted for safe food storage.
In fact, we have quite a bit of unused space around Changi. I have even jokingly offered some of it to our food rescuers. Perhaps my joke can become a serious conversation with the Singapore Land Authority. Because if we are serious about reducing food waste, we need to recognise that storage is part of food rescue.
What else is part of food rescue? Transportation, cold chain capacity, information about where surplus food is available. These are not peripheral issues. I am sure the Government has already developed tools to improve visibility of food global supply chain risks. I think there is scope to apply the same principle domestically, improving visibility of surplus food, connecting it with organisations that can rescue it, and giving them the physical capacity to act quickly.
And this is where partnerships with ground-up organisations can be especially powerful. They already have the volunteers. They know their communities. They know where the demand is. What they often lack is the infrastructure to scale. If the Government can help remove some of those logistical bottlenecks and provide more visibility, I believe these organisations can achieve much more, significantly reducing the amount of food waste we generate now.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore’s food resilience strategy is already built on several strong pillars. My suggestions today are intended to complement those pillars.
First, as we diversify where our food comes from, let us also strengthen the supply chains that connect those sources to the dinner tables in Singapore. Let us work with our global partners not only to secure food but to secure options, pathways and the ability to activate them quickly. And domestically, let us identify the strategic logistics capacity, whether it is storage, cold chain, transport and distribution, that we may need when a disruption occurs.
Second, let us recognise that food rescue is part of food resilience. When there is surplus food available, we should ask whether our supply chain is equipped to recover it and put it to good use. The challenge is often not a lack of food or a lack of demand, but the short window in between – having the information, transport and storage capacity to move that food before it is no longer usable. If we can strengthen these links, we reduce waste while making better use of food supply that Singapore has already secured. Let us make sure that supply does not end in the bin.
Ultimately, food resilience is not just about having enough food. It is about having enough options, enough capacity and enough agility to keep food moving when circumstances change. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Fadli Fawzi.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the start of the COVID-19 pandemic six years ago was probably the first time when many realised how fragile our supply chains could be after borders were sealed and international movement was heavily curtailed. We are especially vulnerable to such disruptions given that we import more than 90% of our food supply. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the war in Iran this year have been further shocks to global supply chains. On top of that, food production is facing unprecedented challenges as extreme weather becomes more common with climate change. This may mean a future where food resources may be jealously guarded by producers and subject to various export restrictions.
As my hon friend, Mr Dennis Tan, highlighted in his speech, food security is fundamentally a matter of national security. While the diversification of overseas food sources remain essential – and here I would like to acknowledge the Government's efforts to increase our food supply sources from 140 countries and regions two decades ago, to 187 in 2024 – I believe that to increase our food security, we must strengthen our local agriculture ecosystem, increase our capabilities to produce manufactured food stuffs and position Singapore as a food trading hub while simultaneously expanding community-based rescue networks to support our most vulnerable households.
To secure our local food supply, we must first look at how we treat our local farms. Today, Singapore produces about a third of all eggs consumed and 3% of vegetable consumed. Local production meets about 8% of our fibre consumption and 25% of our protein consumption as of 2025. Our initial "30 by 30" target to produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030 was dropped last year amid failing local food production over the years. While egg production increased impressively, vegetable production fell from 23,500 tonnes in 2021 to 16,600 tonnes in 2025; while seafood production fell from 5,100 tonnes in 2021 to 3,800 tonnes in 2025. If we are to meet the revised targets of producing 20% of our fibre and 30% of our protein locally by 2035, we need to closely examine whether existing land policies are adequate for these ambitions.
Consider the recent land policy decisions in Lim Chu Kang. In August, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment about the rationale for land use changes in the region, specifically, why long standing farms, like Bollywood Farms, were required to vacate within the year while neighbouring farms were permitted to operate for another decade.
The Ministry responded that land optimisation is necessary to consolidate military training for the Ministry of Defence in the south of Lim Chu Kang, and co-locate food and non-food farms in the north of Lim Chu Kang. We were told that because existing tenancies were simply expiring, rather than being terminated early and had been notified since 2020, that no further release renewals would be granted. The affected farms were given sufficient lead time to prepare for the transition.
But if the Government cannot consolidate all of its land holdings in the south of Lim Chu Kang for another 10 years, what is preventing us from letting the three affected farms carry on their work for another 10 years? These are farms that want to stay but are not being given the chance to stay on. At the same time, we see other farmers that have voluntarily closed shop in the recent years because of competitive headwinds; this is a great pity. What is preventing us from letting the three affected farms continue staying in place for the next 10 years if there is no immediate need for the land that they are occupying now?
While land optimisation is important, I believe that our current approach does not provide farmers with enough consideration for the fact that agriculture relies on long horizons. Since 2016, all new agricultural land has been tendered out on 20-year leases by the Government. But as an example, the owner of one of the three affected farms in Lim Chu Kang told CNA that it took him six years to grow and successfully breed his arowana fish. Soil enrichment, modern crop cycle management and high-tech agritech investments require vast capital upfront. These investments may not yield returns over a three-year or five-year lease.
Sheng Choon, for instance, had invested about $3 million over the past three years in AI and automation to improve the efficiency of its quality control processes and reduce the physical workload on senior workers. While it is not one of the affected farms that has to move out by the end of the year, it will also have to move out in September 2036 once its lease expires. We do not know the depreciation lifecycle of Sheng Choon's investments. This is an example of how investments made by Singapore farmers can amount to nothing if the land is acquired by the state. Can the Government consider tendering out agricultural land on longer leases of 30 years or 20+20 years, provided that these leases are tied to clear production targets and periodic reviews to ensure that the farmers are meeting key performance indicators?
We should provide farmers with long-term assurance over their tenancies and whether they will face land acquisition during their lease, so that farmers can justify large investments into modern automation, high-yield vertical systems or sustainable practices that will allow them to scale up their production.
At the same time, farmers should share an understanding with the Government that they need to be commercially viable and scale up their production to meet our nation's food security needs. To further support farmers, the Government can also consider introducing minimum "Buy Local" requirements for food served in places, such as army camps and schools, especially for industries that are facing for falling production levels year after year, such as vegetables and seafood.
Over time, these requirements can be wound down to ensure that local farms remain commercially viable without Government support. This would be a strategic investment by the Government to support vegetable and fish farms that are finding it difficult to compete on price, but are still needed to ensure that Singapore continues to have this strategic capacity.
Sir, my next suggestion to position Singapore as a food hub will not require any adjustments to land policy. At a time of widespread fuel supply disruptions earlier this year, Singapore was still able to import an unprecedented volume of refined products because we had the foresight to position ourselves as a key oil and gas refinery hub and/or oil trading hub decades ago. We can apply parts of the petrochemical model to food and expand our role as a food manufacturing, processing, trading and transshipment hub in the region, so that products, like fuel products, will always pass through Singapore regardless of supply shocks.
In 2025, Singapore re-exports of fish, seafood, vegetables and fruit amounted to some $520 million. This figure appears quite small compared to other food transshipment hubs, such as the Netherlands, which is the primary re-export hub for fresh fruits and vegetables for Europe through the port of Rotterdam, and re-exported agricultural products with a value of €49 billion in 2025.
Does the Government have a strategy to strengthen Singapore's position as a regional re-export hub for agricultural products and increase the value of such products passing through Singapore? Additionally, we could do more to position ourselves as a strategic industrial food manufacturer. As of 2024, Singapore's food manufacturing sector comprises over 1,500 companies, employing around 68,000 workers and contributing about 1% of GDP. We can do more to consolidate ourselves as a hub in this area.
Similar to what we are doing for semiconductor and biomedical sciences, our strengths in pharmaceuticals, precision manufacturing, food science and logistics overlap strongly with the direction modern food manufacturing is moving. For example, Singapore already has ScaleUp Bio, a contract development and manufacturing operation for microbiome and precision fermentation, backed by ADM and Temasek-owned Nurasa.
Last year, Nestlé expanded its Nestlé R&D Centre Singapore to focus on alternative proteins, including hybrid plant dairy and plant-based products, with support from the Economic Development Board. Suppose we deliberately increase our food manufacturing sector such that we have the capacity to produce several multiples of domestic food consumption, during peacetime, most of this output would normally be exported; but during a crisis, we would enjoy the same resilience benefit that we got from being an oil refining hub.
The Government should consider an industrial food cluster similar to our petrochemical cluster on Jurong Island, producing millions of tonnes of noodles, rice products, milk powder and frozen prepared meals as the next step in our national security. Given that the coordination of many agencies will be required to increase our food security, the Government should also consider setting up an inter-agency taskforce to strengthen our position as a regional food manufacturing, processing, trading and transshipment hub.
Finally, Mr Speaker, securing our food future is not just about producing and importing more. It is also about maximising what we already have. In 2025, we generated almost 800,000 tonnes of food waste. At the same time, low-income households, seniors living alone and vulnerable families are struggling with rising grocery costs and food insecurity. Bridging this gap requires a coordinated nationwide food rescue ecosystem.
As mentioned by various other hon Members, while community organisations, non-profits and volunteer groups do heroic work rescuing unsold produce from hawker centres, supermarkets and distributors, they often operate with limited resources and logistical constraints. For example, in the Kaki Bukit division of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), some of my residents have been diligently organising themselves weekly for several years to receive and distribute rescued vegetables from The Red Collective. The Red Collective itself was formed by a small group of Singaporeans five years ago, because they are passionate about providing for the food-insecure in the lower-income communities and fighting food wastage. The Red Collective movement has now grown to involve over 100 volunteers who collect vegetables, bread and other food items on a daily basis, using their own resources, energy and ingenuity, distributing to many locations all around Singapore.
I am further heartened to find that there are more of such groups that exist in the community, with pockets of energy by residents doing food rescue and distribution. For example, multiple divisions in Sengkang GRC have weekly food rescues. A number of these groups even cross-share their collection to ensure better distribution to as many as possible. They share their struggles too, one of which is the high cost of logistics in Singapore to move large quantities of donated food.
The Government can do more to support by providing financial grants and logistical support to encourage the growth of more of these ground-up initiatives. A Government-run centralised platform connecting local food businesses directly with neighbourhood food rescue charities could also help ensure that excess food reaches those who need it more rapidly. Rescuing food addresses two challenges at once. It reduces our carbon footprint and provides immediate dignity preserving relief to Singaporeans highest hit by the rising cost of living.
Sir, in conclusion, food security is an interconnected policy domain involving land use, technology, community action and social welfare. To ensure every Singapore family has affordable food on the table, regardless of external crisis, we must give our farmers the land stability they need to innovate. We expand our role as a food manufacturing, processing, trading and transshipment hub, and build robust public-civil partnerships to eliminate food waste. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.
Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion, and I will focus on the resilience and affordability of our food supply.
Singapore Food Story 2 has already made an important shift towards a broader portfolio of resilience measures, diversified imports, global partnerships, stockpiles and local production. Singapore today sources food from more than 180 countries and regions. But when it comes to resilience, I think important gaps remain. The more fundamental question is how well these alternatives perform when the system comes under stress.
I would like to raise three questions. First, are our alternative sources genuinely diversified in the risks they faced or could the same shock affect several at once? Second, when disruption occurs, how well can the food network absorb the shock and reconfigure around it? Third, what strategic positions and capability should Singapore enterprises build in global food network before the next disruption occurs?
Members have suggested that thinking about local production as a portfolio of farms, so that diversity is built into our domestic production base. I think that portfolio idea is equally useful when we look at imports. A good portfolio is not simply one with many holdings. What matters is whether those holdings respond differently when conditions change.
Let me illustrate with the humble banana. Bananas are grown across Asia, Latin America and Africa, and importers sourcing from several countries may therefore appear well diversified, but almost all bananas traded internationally are Cavendish. Cavendish plants are genetically very similar, and that uniformity leaves the traded banana supply particularly vulnerable to diseases such as tropical race four (TR4). TR4 has now been detected in many banana producing countries, while a large proportion of global banana production remains susceptible.
Different countries of origin do not necessarily mean different underlying risk. That means diversification has to be judged across the set of alternatives, not one source at a time.
The portfolio question is whether apparently different sources are exposed to the same failure modes. Two suppliers may be in different countries but affected by the same El Niño cycle. Several sources may pass through the same maritime chokepoint. Different producers may be vulnerable to the same animal or plant disease.
Geographically, distant suppliers may still be hit by the same energy or freight shock and several exporting countries may respond to the same geopolitical crisis by imposing restrictions at the same time. That is core related vulnerability or common mode failure. A new source may still be commercially useful, but if its climate logistics and geopolitical exposures closely resemble those already in our portfolio, then it's marginal contribution to resilience may be modest.
Sometimes, a supplier contributes resilience, not because it is cheaper or larger, but because it is likely to fail differently. So, perhaps the next step is to assess sources not only for price, capacity and reliability, but also for their contribution to portfolio resilience, whether they diversify the climatic, ecological, logistical and geopolitical risk already represented in our network. We should diversify not only where our food comes from, but also the reasons why it might stop coming.
But even the portfolio designed around different failure modes will eventually encounter a shock. So, the next question is what the network can do when that happens. Once a shock occurs, there are two tests. How much can the existing network absorb and when that is no longer enough, how readily can it be reconfigure?
Singapore already builds alternative sources, partnerships and stockpiles to give us options when disruption occur. Earlier this year, Member Dr Choo Pei Ling asked whether our food contingency plans have been tested against simultaneous disruptions across multiple import sources. The Government said that we have sufficient buffers and contingency plans, which are regularly reviewed. That assurance is important, but it leaves open a narrower question. What can we say publicly about how that resilience is actually tested?
Japan offers a useful comparison. It has published some of the scenarios used in its food security exercises, including substantial simultaneous reductions in imports of major grains. Its Ministry of Agriculture is also developing modelling that combines production, imports, stocks and global supply conditions to assess calorie supply and nutritional balance under disruption.
I understand why Singapore would not disclose sensitive stockpile limits, but we can be transparent about the test without exposing the limits of the system. We can publish the kinds of scenarios tested, the outcomes measured and the standards used to judge resilience while keeping sensitive operational information confidential. That transparency matters, because uncertainty can itself amplify a disruption.
Under stress, households may buy more than usual. Businesses may compete for inventory or build precautionary stocks. Those reactions can intensify shortages and price movements. Transparency cannot remove a genuine supply constraint, but credible evidence that possible disruptions have been tested can reduce the risk that fear compounds it.
Greater transparency about preparedness can also afford can also support affordability. For the shock absorption capacity of the network, I would look at three straightforward measures: how much can we replace? How fast and at what cost? Volume, time and cost.
But once that capacity is exceeded, the network must adapt. And here I think Member Ms Poh Li San's emphasis on coordination is important. Better coordination of supply and demand can reduce unnecessary imports and waste in normal times. But under disruption that same capability becomes a source of resilience. Knowing what supply is available where it sits and how quickly it can be redirected.
Three things affect how readily that can happen. First, we need usable links to alternative sources. Spare capacity elsewhere is of limited help if commercial ties, regulatory arrangements or logistics cannot scale quickly enough. Malaysia is a positive example of this. Our food ties sit within much deeper trade investment infrastructure and socio-cultural relationships, giving both sides established channels through which to respond.
Resilience, therefore, depends not only on alternative nodes, but on links that can carry more when needed but a usable link is only useful if firms are able to activate it – which brings me to the second point.
The network also needs financial capacity to reconfigure itself. Even if a new supplier and supply route are available, higher commodity freight and inventory cost may require much more working capital. Food can exist and still not move if firms cannot finance the switch or manage the associated risk of transportation.
Third, adaptability also depends on how flexibly demand can shift. If a particular food becomes constrained, part of the response can be to reduce pressure on it by shifting demand towards substitutes.
My narrow point is their potential role in contingency planning. Could we identify substitution pathways before a crisis occurs. For important food categories, retailers could know which alternatives can be scaled and promoted. F&B operators and institutional buyers could identify menu or procurement choices that can switch quickly. Consumers could receive clear information on readily available substitutes. Supply can move towards what is available and demand can move away from what is constrained. That flexibility can ease pressure on scarce products and moderate the price effects of a disruption.
So, network adaptability ultimately depends on usable relationships, coordination, available finance and flexible demand. Much of that re-configuration has to be carried out by firms. They have to know where alternative supply exists, activate relationships, arrange logistics and manage the risk of switching.
That raises my third question. What positions and capabilities should Singapore enterprises build before the next disruption occurs?
Japan offers another useful example. Its agricultural ministry treats the overseas procurement networks of Japanese companies as part of a stable import policy. Marubeni Corporation, through its US subsidiary, has relationships with farmers, more than 50 grain elevator locations, storage capability and links into export infrastructure. It says that its own origination network means that contingencies do not automatically force it into the market to buy from others at higher cost.
The point is not that Japan owns American grain. It is that its firms possesses information, relationships and operating capabilities deeper inside the network than the final import transaction.
Network position itself can be a capability, and Singapore is not starting from zero. Firms like Agrocorp, for example, has grown from commodity trading into a business spending farmer relationships, procurement processing logistics, warehousing and distribution. So, the question is not simply how we help agri-food firms internationalise. It is where can Singapore enterprises, including promising small and medium enterprises (SMEs), build commercially competitive positions that also create strategic optionality for Singapore. And enterprise embedded in the network can see more of it, reach more of the players and have more pathways through which to act. In normal times, those are commercial advantages. In a crisis, they can become strategic capabilities for Singapore.
The Government already has tools for internationalisation, market access and capability building. The additional consideration I propose is straightforward for selected agri-food investments assess not only the commercial case, but the enterprises contribution to Singapore's food resilience. Does it give us better visibility of supply, stronger producer relationships or additional pathways through which supply can be reconfigured? Where that contribution is material, it could inform how risk sharing and enterprise support tools are deployed.
Done well, this approach can deliver a double dividend, a stronger food resilience, stronger Singapore agri-food SMEs with the networks and capabilities to scale regionally and globally.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has already made important moves toward a broader and more diversified food strategy. I think the next step is to look more closely at the quality and architecture of that resilience from diversification to portfolio resilience. How differently do our alternatives fail from contingency options to network adaptability?
How well can the system absorb and reconfigure around the shop? And from internationalisation to strategic position, where can Singapore enterprises build the capabilities to create and orchestrate the pathways we may need?
Together, these can strengthen our resilience to the geopolitical and climate shocks ahead, while protecting what ultimately matters: Singapore's continued access to affordable and adequate food. On that basis, Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Cai Yinzhou.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I rise in support of this Motion.
I want to spend my time on the protein on our plates, in particular the seafood we grow in our own waters. Let me begin with the number that will be used against this cause. The last time our statistics were reported on their own was in 2024, when locally farmed seafood was 6.1% of what we ate, down from 7.3% and 7.6% the years before.
Behind that falling share, the number of farms is falling too: 98 sea-based fish farms in 2023, to 72, to 67 in 2025. A small number getting smaller and some will say that we could import our way past.
I want to persuade this House: the smallness of the figure is not the reason to let it go, but the reason to hold on.
It is not really about whether we get our sambal stingray or our chilli crab. This is national security. We spoke of water as necessary for our survival. Today, the Four National Taps, give the ability to stand on our own feet if the tap is ever turned off. Food deserves the same vocabulary. As the Rajaratnam School of International Studies' Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies argues, food security runs from local production here to resilience of our supply chains abroad.
Local seafood might not be the cheapest fish in the market. But the cheapest fish is the imported one, right up until the day supply is cut and then it has no price at all, because there is no fish. Affordability measured only in good weather is a false economy. Local production is the insurance we pay so that affordable never becomes quietly unavailable. The question therefore is not whether this small sector is worth intervening. It is whether it is a capability we are willing to lose.
Sir, let me take the House out on the water.
Over the past few months, I went out to open-cage sea farms at sea and land-based fish farms. I visited Smith Marine, our only floating kelong restaurant, ate at Smolder by Ah Hua Kelong, where local seafood is grilled and served with pride. I went to St John's Island National Marine Lab and the Marine Aquaculture Centre to see the latest in research, and visited James Cook University’s aquaculture programme. I followed local content creator Donovan Lee also known as "Mr Taste of the Bay" to speak with traders at the Jurong Fishery Port and to his wet-market stall in Tiong Bahru to understand consumer habits.
It might be easy to assume local farms are closing because they cannot produce enough. But that is not what is happening.
Our farmers can grow fish. What they cannot do is reliably sell it. And to see why, let me introduce a farmer named Gary Chong. Gary has spent 47 years on the water, running San Lay Marine Culture, an open-cage sea farm off our north-east coast. He is not just a farmer, but he breeds groupers. The adults spawn at night on a full moon, six times in a year. Over the years he has built a reputation for a hybrid broodstock that grows fast, survive hard conditions, and tastes good at the table. That is not through luck but decades of knowledge, and it has earned him something you cannot grant-fund, which is a reputation.
Today, hatcheries across the region and here at home seek out his fry. And yet he is being squeezed out, not for failing to grow fish, but for the price he sells them. These are Gary's own figures: 30 years ago, seabass sold at $14 a kilogramme and a farmer could make a living. Today it fetches around $7, half the price, while wages have tripled and feed has risen 80%.
Here is the trap. A local seabass costs more to grow than an imported one costs to buy, around $7.80 against $6 at the wet market. The aunty will always surely reach out for the cheaper fish, but Gary cannot follow the marked price: his rent, labour, feed, fuel and fingerlings are fixed. So, how has he survived? As he put it: the farmer has been very efficient by taking a pay cut instead of making a profit.
I asked Gary what his farm's name meant. San Lay, 三利 in Mandarin, three parties must benefit. In any trade, he said, there are three: supplier, middleman, buyer; and the business is only sound when all three gain, none at another's expense. The trouble is his own trade today can no longer honour it: the buyer gets a cheap fish, the middleman takes a margin. It is the supplier, the farmer who grows the fish, who has been cut out.
On paper, farms are improving productivity. From 38.6 to 51.5 tonnes per hectare in three years. However, that rise reflects both genuine gains and farms exiting. When the weakest close, the average of those left rises. A sector resting on fewer and fewer firms is not stronger but more fragile. Nor is technology the only escape.
Apollo Aquaculture, a $65 million and eight-storey farm, collapsed into judicial management. Barramundi Group, listed, with deep-sea cages off our Southern Islands, was hit by disease and left Singapore altogether. Of 26 farms that closed in 2024, six had taken close to $700,000 in productivity grants, but closed anyway. The binding problem was never how much fish we can grow. But whether the farmer can sell it at a price that lets him survive.
And when a farm, like Gary's, closes, we do not just lose just its yearly tonnage. But we lose the 47 years, the reputation, the knowledge for exactly when the fish is ready to spawn. It leaves on the last boat and you cannot grant-fund that back once it is gone.
And when a farm gets it right, we should not watch it go. With GPC Chair Poh Li San, we visited New Trio Fisheries, a land-based farm in Lim Chu Kang run by her resident Steven Chong, which generates 200 tonnes of seafood a year. Grand Seafood Enterprise, a trader supplying top restaurants, like TungLok and Paradise Group, has chosen to co-locate on his farm. Counting on Steven not just for volume but for last-minute orders no one else can fill. That is 三利 in action: middleman, buyer and the supplier, each one gaining. New Trio's farm lease ends this year.
Sir, on behalf of the sector, these are the asks.
First, on processing and product. Sea farmers are barred from gutting and processing their own catch on their farm, closing off the value-added channel entirely. Under Food Story 2, the Government is already studying shared, multi-tenanted facilities to lower production costs for vegetable and agritech farms. Apply the same thinking to our sea farmers as a shared "Wet Hub" sited near farms, at Lorong Halus or Lim Chu Kang, where they can centrally move their catch and split the cost of gutting, packing and icing.
From there, close the loop: a whole fish earns cents, but processed into fillets, otah, fishballs or yong tau foo, it can fetch dollars. Link the Hub to central kitchens and manufacturers, or subsidise the post-production machinery that lets local catch enter that supply chain. Will the Ministry study a coastal Wet Hub and the processing links that let our farmers keep a share of what their harvest is worth?
Second, on offtake. If the auntie will not pay more for a local fish, why would a restaurant? Because they are not buying the same thing. To the aunty, a fish is a fish regardless of origin, and she is right to choose on price. But a premium kitchen is buying a story it can charge for: local barramundi, landed that morning, fresh in a way a fish frozen for weeks in transit can never be. Local seafood loses only where it is anonymous, it wins wherever we make the origin visible.
Aim the offtake where local can command its price: the premium food-service sectors, or the anchor institutions that buy at scale – hospitals, the public service, large caterers – where a resilience mandate can justify a modest premium, as it does for any other security good. Expand the "Farm-to-Table" scheme so public buyers commit to local produce and can safer broker long-term contracts that give a farmer what he lacks most: a reliable buyer that he can count on for offtake, before he stocks the pond with fingerling fish.
Third, on research. In a lab I heard about a seabass strain bred for traits and resistance. The science is real and good but the "superfish" is only super in the right environment in the lab.
I propose to tie grant-funded research to testing on working farms at production scale, not only in the tank, but in the sea where the fish must live. And when farms take part, to share the intellectual property with them. That gives a farm a stake, a reason to commercialise and export what we develop, and it is what draws the private capital the sector needs. The most immediate form of that access is to the fry itself. Will the Ministry subsidise fingerlings from the National Broodstock Centre, so that breeding we fund reaches farms at a price they can use?
There is a deeper point, and I owe it to Sobana, a research assistant in the Steven Fong lab at the National University of Singapore's (NUS') Department of Biological Sciences. Much of our funding chases high technology with a long translational distance, meaning years between the lab and anything a farm can use. Technology is the right destination, but the honest question is whether our farms are ready to absorb it, and most are not.
In a project, some collaborators use advanced micro-encapsulation for feed additives, while her bench tests uses what sits on any kitchen shelf – garlic, ginger, yeast – for the same immunostimulant effect. Nature is parsimonious, as she explains, and aquaculture should be too. The fastest science to reach a farmer is often the simplest.
Aquaculture and conservation have long been funded separately. One set of grants for farm, another, scarcer, for the environment. Yet they are not separate. Without a healthy environment there is nothing to grow in, and the knowledge we gain growing fish can help restore the very waters we grow it in.
Imagine studying what a sea cage's nutrient run-off can do to enhance a seagrass meadow, or how rewilding a keystone species, like lobsters, can be onto a restored reef. Such projects feed humans and nourish seas at the same time. Will the Ministry open a grant pathway for research that serves aquaculture and conservation together?
Fourth, on the people. Across Temasek, Republic, Ngee Ann Polytechnics, NUS, the Nanyang Technological University, James Cook University, we train aquaculture talent. Yet we have almost no idea whether the people we train ever set foot on a farm. In a previous Parliamentary Question where I asked why we do not track and whether the Ministry would build a graduate-to-sector mechanism of the kind we have for healthcare and teaching, the reply was candid, that SFA tracks farm productivity but not whether graduates join farms.
This explains the stark reality on the ground, where none of the sea farmers I have met had ever employed an intern or staff from a local programme. If food is a security and strategic matter, will the Ministry track graduates into aquaculture, and work with our schools and farms to build a real pipeline, so that the talent we train work on our farms.
Fifth, the 2024 statistics revealed plainly that local seafood was 6.1% of what we ate. In the 2025 report, seafood no longer has a figure of its own, but folded with eggs into a single protein category, targeted at 30% by 2035. The tonnage is still published, but the share from our own farms is gone. The combined figure looks flattering, where strong eggs mask weak seafood production; the farms close underneath, 98 to 67. Will the Ministry set and report a distinct seafood self-sufficiency sub-target within the protein goal?
Let me now come back to Gary and tell you one last important thing about his farm. He told me, with a straight face, that he is the CEO of 2,000 staff. Two are humans. The other 1,998 are spiny lobsters living in his nets. They are a living anti-fouling system, cleaning them better than any machine could. But that is not the amazing part. Today, those lobsters are breeding. Researchers at NUS tried for years to breed spiny lobsters in the lab but could not recreate the conditions they needed. But they found Gary's lobsters casually carrying eggs and breeding on their own in the very conditions the lab could not recreate. The research has now flipped. Scientists now study at his farm to learn how he does it.
That is the whole argument. We will spend billions defending our coastline, sea walls, polders, barriers against rising sea levels, temperature and acidity. That is the engineered half of coastal defence and it is right that we build it. But there is a biological half, the ecological buffers.
On St John's Island, two labs sit side by side: one growing our food, the other restoring our seas. We must acknowledge that they are solving the same problem – how life in our waters survives conditions shifting under us – and we should treat them as one national capability, not two adjacent projects.
Because lose these farms, we do not just lose 6.1% of our self-sufficiency. But we lose the platform our coastal science stands on. This was never about a small number. But whether we keep a standing capability that feeds us and defends our coast at once, and whether we go on measuring "affordable" only in fair weather, until the weather turns and there is nothing left to buy. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to summarise today's key points in Mandarin.
Locally-farmed seafood currently accounts for only 6.1% of national consumption, while the number of fish farms continues to decline. The problem is not that our farmers cannot produce fish. Rather, high costs and low-priced imports are making it increasingly difficult for local farms to remain viable. As Lianhe Zaobao reported in January this year, our fish farmers are struggling to survive in the face of adversity.
The survival of our local fisheries is integral to our food resilience. It is not only a line of defence in our ability to feed ourselves, but also a means of preserving and passing on aquaculture expertise and experience. Once these capabilities are lost, they cannot be restored immediately when needed.
This line of defence has another dimension. We spend tens of billions of dollars building sea walls to protect against rising sea levels. That is the "hard" half. But there is also a "soft" half: living coral reefs and breeding grounds that protect our coastline and these already exist within our fish farms.
On St John's Island, two laboratories stand side by side: one grows food, while the other protects the marine environment. They are, in fact, addressing the same challenge. We should regard them as a single national capability, rather than as two separate projects.
I therefore hope that the Government will strengthen support in four areas.
First, help fish farmers process their produce, add value and secure reliable buyers. Second, ensure that research, technology and training are effectively applied on farms. Third, track local seafood production and self-sufficiency more clearly. And fourth, raise consumer awareness of and confidence in locally-farmed fish.
Ultimately, this is not merely an issue concerning a small industry. It is about whether we want to preserve our own seafood production capability. Let us extend a helping hand while there is still time.
(In English): The question is simple: will fish farming remain part of our Food Story or merely our history? Notwithstanding the clarifications, I support the Motion.
Ms He Ting Ru.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Motion before the House today is topical. The issue of Singapore's food security and resilience is a thorny one and many will remember COVID era images of panic buying, emptying supermarket shelves, and the hoarding and stockpiling of food items like eggs. With various wars, blockades and their attendant disruptions to supply chains and increases in prices, it is no wonder that our attention is once again focused on how we feed ourselves.
More recently, we have also been hit with a wave of food business closures with heritage names, such as Ka-Soh and Warung Nasi Pariaman permanently shuttering. These joined the more than 3,000 businesses that closed in both 2024 and 2025, and over 2,000 between January and July this year alone. And even when the number of new food outlets opening maybe more than those closing, the sense of loss and concern as we hear about yet another well-known food outlet closing down is much harder to measure or compensate away.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Likewise, the fear of what happens should we run out of food is a visceral one. And when we layer on relentless well-loved food business closures, we start applying a scarcity lens to frame the issue. While we quite rightly need to understand and properly tackle the complex challenges our nation faces in feeding our people, scarcity means we focus too much on how much we grow, how much we import, what happens if we run out, but scarcity could be the wrong starting point. It leads us to only look at defensive policy that can hit its own targets, while still leaving some Singaporeans hungry.
Scarcity on a macro level also means that we risk not addressing the lived food insecurities that many of our fellow Singaporean households face. Singapore must not hit supply side targets on paper, yet still leave vulnerable households food insecure. The 2019 Hunger Report, now more than six years old, estimated that around 10% of Singaporean households face food insecurity.
The United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization, covering the period 2022 to 2024, found that 9.5% of our population, over 500,000 people, experience moderate to severe food insecurity, with 3.5% experiencing severe food insecurity, meaning insufficient food quantity and risk of physical hunger. This report found that prevalence has tripled comparing 2014 to 2016 against 2022 to 2024. Scarcity asks if we have enough food, but the question is not whether food exists in our country, but whether every household can reliably access and afford it, even under stress.
This is why I hope today to expand on the speech that I made during the debate on the Food Safety and Security Bill in January 2025, to lend our attention squarely on food resilience.
Food resilience can be broken down into three pillars: exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Exposure means how exposed we are to external shocks. Sensitivity measures how much harm a shock will actually cost. And adaptive capacity measures the ability of households and the system to absorb and recover from shocks without lasting damage.
First, on exposure. Our high land-labour-energy costs and consumer uptake means that despite many previous attempts at boosting local food production, we still import over 90% of our total food consumption. Our previous "30 by 30" target was ultimately a scarcity target. It asks how much we grow, not how resilient we are. The Singapore Food Story 2 strategy that replaced this target last year, narrows and refines these targets to 20% of our fibre needs, and 30% of our protein needs to be met locally by 2035.
My colleague, Mr Dennis Tan spoke on the challenges that still remain to local food producers. What I would note is that our aggregate national supply has, in fact, held up through real shocks – through COVID, war-driven price spikes and global protectionism. We did not run out of food then.
One read of this, is that the system level resilience we have built through import diversification, overseas partnerships and now stockpiling, has kept our larder stocked. But yet we are still seeing food insecurity among our own people, our own families. Then, the vulnerability we should really be worried about lies elsewhere and it is one which the scarcity lens may be inadvertently obscuring food insecurity experienced by households.
Next, sensitivity. Importing the majority of our food supply naturally leaves us highly exposed to price fluctuations and supply chain shocks. Sensitivity measures how much harm such shocks will cause. Singapore was ranked the world's most food secure nation by the Economist Intelligence Unit, but this ranking can hide important nuances at the individual or even community level.
For example, research on food-insecure pregnant women at KK Women's and Children's Hospital published just last year, found that food-insecure pregnant women often present with higher than average body weight, while suffering real deficiencies in the form of low haemoglobin and Vitamin D. This suggests that sometimes food insecurity in our wealthy nation can hide behind seeming abundance. When we zoom out to the general population, the 2019 study estimated over 500,000 of our people live with moderate to severe food insecurity.
It is even more sobering when we realise that this study was done in the context of business as usual, pre-COVID-19 and a nation which is top ranked as food secure. For food-insecure households, one can only imagine what effect a crisis would have on them. Even without one, they already find it difficult to eat well. Every day, members of these families face having to make difficult choices about how much they can afford to eat and when they need to forgo a meal in favour of another pressing daily need.
Worse, international studies suggest that there is even a gendered dimension to this – in a form of a phenomenon known as "maternal buffering". That is, mothers and food insecure households – giving up their own nutrition in favour of other family members, often at the expense of their own well-being. A recent New Zealand Study heartbreakingly illustrates this. Mothers, in that study, described reducing their own portion sizes, reserving the most nutritious foods for their children, skipping meals, eating minimally, giving quotes, such as "a piece of bread will fill you up", and even masking hunger with water.
While I could not find Singapore specific studies on whether this phenomenon exists here, these descriptions are not unheard of in my interactions with some constituents. We need to more fully understand the magnitude of whether this is a problem here, especially since improper nutrition also adversely affects emotional and mental health – an issue that I brought up during a debate on the Mental Health Motion back in 2024.
The Government will point to the plethora of assistance schemes already in place, but intention may not translate to reach, nor does it account for the simple fact that we are dealing with human beings. The New Zealand Research I mentioned earlier also noted that we have to look beyond lack of awareness. There were also reasons, such as embarrassment, the belief that other families needed it more, or just dejection, which prevented food insecure families from getting the support that they needed.
Here in Singapore, it is worth noting that the Hunger Report found that only 22% of food insecure households received support. Of those, only one in five felt it made a lasting difference, suggesting that the problem is extremely complex.
Mr Speaker, if we take sensitivity seriously, our obligation is not just to ask whether Singapore has enough food. We must also ask whether every household, especially those least visible to us, can reliably access and afford it, in good times as well as bad. We need a fresh, nationally representative study updating the 2019 Hunger Report, so this House is no longer relying on old data for a problem that the FAO tells us has multiplied over the years.
Any review of support schemes must also begin with harmonising eligibility across ComCare, Food Banks and community assistance, so access does not depend on which door a struggling family happens to knock on.
Mr Speaker, if sensitivity asks how deeply food insecurity already harms our people, adaptive capacity takes this further. It asks that when a shock hits – be it a price spike, a rent increase, a hawker forced to raise prices. Can each household's different needs still be met, or does our system offer the same rigid response, regardless?
Underpinning this, is how we must strive to ensure that all households have access to safe and nutritious food. Crucially, we also must not stigmatise those who seek help. Research has found that shame often remains one of the most persistent barriers keeping food insecure households from obtaining the support meant for them and that we have to address what these different households need.
These range from a mother using water to stave off hunger so that her child can eat. A disabled elderly person unable to cook for themselves, or families are forced to choose between keeping the lights on or buying more fibre and protein. How can we ensure every household can access what it needs?
My Sengkang colleague, Mr Louis Chua earlier proposed tapping the existing Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) card system to provide tiered discounts at hawker centres, coffee shops and supermarkets, with blue card holders receiving the highest quantum. This approach uses infrastructure we already have and critically gives the recipients autonomy to decide for themselves whether they need cooked food, groceries or other essentials, rather than people sitting in an office deciding for them.
Another resource to tap on to boost our adaptive capacity already exists. Our hawkers. Historically, hawkers provided us with affordable, accessible cooked food that kept our families fed. Yet, in recent years, hawkers have struggled, exposed to rising rentals and operating costs. These costs inevitably pass through to their food prices.
Mr Speaker, beyond one-off rental rebates, we need more systematic ways of addressing this and this should extend to how many of our hawker centres are run in the first place, specifically Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs).
Since 2011, new hawker centres have been handed to private operators to manage for a fee. NEA, however, remains the sole agency responsible for planning, building and maintaining every one of our existing centres. And after more than a decade, the Government's own data appears to show that occupancy, store turnover, satisfaction and even rents appear to be broadly comparable between SEHC and NEA-managed centres. If these core outcomes are already comparable without an additional layer, what then does management fee actually purchase?
Even One Punggol, run by an experienced operator since opening, saw that operator exits early over operational difficulties. The Government's response was that viability depends more on catchment, amenities and connectivity than on which operator is in charge. NEA should thus publish a proper light for light assessment, controlling for age, location and catchment, comparing net expenditure, hawker viability and satisfaction.
And when the next SEHC contract expires, we should be willing to pilot direct NEA management and let the evidence, not assumption, decide whether this middle layer remains necessary.
This is why we have called for all hawker centres to come back under direct NEA management. It does not mean that every useful function currently performed by an SEHC operator must disappear. Where specialists, expertise genuinely adds value, those capabilities can still be developed or procured. NEA can retain the direct relationship with our hawkers and build up its own institutional expertise, rather than assuming that professional management necessarily requires a middle man in the form of a master tenant.
Mr Speaker, another way in which we can boost adaptive capacity is to further re-orient our plates around local produce. But ask any household doing their grocery run, and the reality is this: local produce still costs around 30% more than the imported alternative. For a family watching every dollar, buy local or champion local is not really an option.
Despite schemes, like the SG Fresh Produce logo, local vegetable and seafood consumption has continued to decline. FairPrice also recently pulled produce from at least three local farms off its shelves even as our farmers contend with rising costs that only widened the price gap.
Consumer goodwill alone will not reverse this. If we are serious about our new fibre and protein targets, we need to tackle both sides of this equation – cost and demand.
On cost, our farmers still operate individually, each absorbing energy, manpower and rental pressures alone. We must explore cooperative structures which allow local farms to pool costs.
On the Farm-to-Table Recognition Programme (FTTRP), could qualifying criteria be strengthened over time, paired with preferential credits or tax relief that actually translate into lower prices for diners at FTTRP establishments, rather than rely on goodwill or exposure alone?
For demand, institutional buyers can move volumes individual consumers cannot. In July, seven urban farms struck wholesale deals with buyers like SATS and central kitchens, which is worth scaling.
In this vein, I want to bring up a point I made in January 2025. Given our ongoing struggles to feed our children well in schools, could central school catering be combined with a community-supported agriculture arrangement with local farms? This is more extensively built on in my Aljunied GRC colleague Gerald Giam's speech and would build both a demand pipeline for our farmers and allow children to understand what eating local means from a young age. Because if buying local only ever makes sense for those who can absorb the extra cost, it will never become the norm and will remain a virtual reserve for those who can afford it.
The last aspect of resilience which I hope to touch on today is the resilience of our food identity whilst being buffeted by winds of change. Key to our adaptive capacity when we talk about food is also the accumulated knowledge, skill and memory that lets communities sustain themselves through hardship.
Long before "30 by 30" or Singapore Food Story 2, our people already spent generations building ground up adaptive capacity and figured out how to feed their families well using what was already at our doorstep. Nonya cooks stretched modest ingredients into rendang and kueh. Hawkers built cuisines around head-to-toe cuts and local catch.
This is not nostalgia. It is the resourcefulness we have to capture and maintain – how to eat well, sustainably, from what our farms and waters can actually provide.
Crucially, this wisdom was never static. Each generation adapted what came before to new ingredients and constraints. The capacity to evolve is itself the inheritance worth protecting, not a fixed set of recipes frozen in time.
This knowledge also survives only when they are practised, passed on and allowed to keep evolving. Just as our dependence on a handful of countries for the bulk of our food imports is a sensitivity risk, the steady closure of heritage establishments concentrates our food landscape into fewer hands and fewer places, where this evolution and adaption can happen. This is why our efforts to preserve our food heritage such as our hawker culture through the Hawkers Succession Scheme and its United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) inscription cannot stop there.
I would suggest two extensions.
First, extend succession support beyond hawker centres to privately run heritage establishments. Ka-Soh and Wing Seong Fatty's closed for the same reasons many hawker stalls once did – no successor, no institutional bridge – but they fall outside the scheme purely because they are not government-managed.
Secondly, formerly document and digitise culinary knowledge that today exists only in family memory, particularly for cuisines like Eurasian cooking, extending the National Heritage Board's existing work on individual heritage dishes to actively record recipes and techniques before they are lost with the practitioners who hold them —
Sorry, Minister. Are you, would you like to take part in the debate? Sorry, I just keep hearing you speaking.
All this matters. Our food identity has never been fixed. It has always absorbed new ingredients, new communities, new constraints and made them its own. This ability to evolve and adapt is even more important in a world reshaped by climate change and the sustainability choices we have debated today.
As we ask Singaporeans to eat more local vegetables, more eggs and seafood, less red meat, we are asking our food culture to evolve once again. The evolution will succeed far more if it draws on a living, well-documented tradition of resourceful homespun cooking than if we let that tradition vanish and try to invent sustainable eating from scratch.
Preserving this knowledge is not about holding onto the past. It is about protecting our capacity to keep adapting, which is exactly what a changing climate will keep demanding of us.
In conclusion, an over-emphasis on scarcity overlooks the genuine strengths we already have – diverse supply chains, the means to trade globally, a system which holds up through real shocks. Dwelling on scarcity diverts attention from what exactly is our binding constraint – whether every household can access and afford good food.
This is why I believe that to fully understand and strengthen resilience, we have to look beyond exposure and sensitivity. A more equitable food system is a more resilient one. A diet shaped around what we can sustainably grow strengthens both our farms and our planet. And a food culture that is actively preserved and allowed to keep evolving gives us the adaptive capacity to meet whatever comes next.
Mr Speaker, we take great pride in calling ourselves a nation of food lovers, but —
Ms He, you might want to round up your speech.
Yes. Last paragraph. But for food lovers, food must first nourish every family's table, without exception. We must move beyond asking merely whether we have enough and commit to a food system that is equitable, sustainable and unmistakably ours.
Ms Poh, you have a clarification to make?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to make a small clarification to a number I mentioned in my speech earlier on. I misspoke that D2L.sg diverted 1,100 tonnes of food waste since the business launched in 2023. It should be 1,100 tonnes of food waste in 2025 alone. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Deputy Leader.
PAPERCUTS