Towards a Safer, Plastics-lite Singapore

Mr Speaker, I must thank Members for staying back for this Adjournment Motion despite this late hour.

In this Adjournment Motion, I will outline the significance of the problem of microplastics, the need for sacrifice from all of us to address it and to propose two carrots that the Government could implement, to reduce single-use plastics. Doing so will not only be good for the environment, it will make a material impact on our health.

Plastics are artificial beings called into reality by humans – often, they are used only once, but live forever.

Today, we are living with the disastrous consequences of global plastic waste because of its non-biodegradable nature. Plastics poses a significant threat to wildlife, when animals ingest plastics debris. Production of plastics relies heavily on fossil fuels and contributes significant greenhouse gas emissions. Burning plastics releases toxic chemicals into the environment.

The damage to our health from microplastics leeching is even more urgent and deadly. Microplastics enter our body because of what we eat and drink, we breathe them in and absorb them through skin contact. Some researchers show that we are probably ingesting the weight of a plastic credit card every week without realising it.

When we drink from low quality, single-use plastic cups or microwave food wrapped in plastics, we are sprinkling microplastics into our food and drinks.

While the research on microplastics and their health impact is still developing, there is significant evidence that microplastics are related to health issues in the gastrointestinal, respiratory, reproductive, cardiovascular and autoimmune systems.

According to a recent release by Harvard School of Public Health, microplastic exposure can lead to damage to cells, DNA and the immune response. Observational studies have shown an association of microplastics with increased risk of heart attack, stroke, dementia, or early death.

We need action on two fronts: first, internationally, everyone on this planet – countries, businesses, people – need to limit plastic pollution and to find environmentally-safe alternatives; second, on the individual, consumer front – we can and should make changes to our habits and lifestyle, to reduce the use of single-use plastics in Singapore.

Here, let me speak about the two carrots.

The first carrot is to incentivise re-use of plastics. First, let me talk about why reuse and not recycle. Re-use is always greener than recycle, but in the case of plastics, especially so. Singapore’s current plastics recycling rate is a dismal 5%. This single digit phenomenon is not just prevalent in Singapore but in the United States and many countries as well.

It is not the fault of the National Environment Agency (NEA) nor Singaporeans. It is an intractable economics problem because it simply costs more to recycle than to produce new plastic products.

Global plastics production jumped from 234 million tonnes in year 2000 to 435 million tonnes in year 2020 and is expected to jump by another 70% by year 2040.

Last year, in Singapore alone, we produced 957,000 tonnes of plastic waste and about four in 10 items are single-use plastics. Since plastics recycling rate is very low at around 5%, even if we double plastics recycling, nine in 10 items will still become trash. Hence, there is an urgent need to step up upstream prevention. And this is the real solution in the long run.

Economics also fails for single-use plastics because the price does not reflect its true cost. Because when we include the cost of removal, to collect, transport and burn, plus the cost of carbon emissions to the environment, the real costs are actually much higher.

It is just that they are unpriced, or not paid directly by consumers, unless we count the price of poor health.

Government, businesses and communities can work together to encourage and incentivise businesses to offer re-use solutions. In every household, many consumer items can be stored in re-usable containers. If there are more options for refills stations for common household items such as laundry detergents, dishwashing liquids, or even hair and body shampoos, especially if they are offered at a discounted price, consumers will be motivated to switch to reuseable options. This shift in consumer behaviour would directly cut down the usage of single-use plastics.

One good ground-up commercial solution is the EcoWorks vending machines that dispense laundry detergent and washing liquids. Residents save money too as the average cost of $3 per litre is about 20% to 30% cheaper than individually packed ones. I am happy to share that four out of eight members in the Government Parliamentary Committee for Sustainability and Environment have implemented the EcoWorks vending machines in their respective constituencies. The residents of my colleagues, Mr Foo Cexiang, Ms Valerie Yap, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and myself, have been enjoying the convenience and cost savings from refilling laundry detergents and washing liquids into their own bottles.

I call for the Government to do more to support start-ups with environmentally-friendly and commercially scalable ideas.

Currently, NEA’s 3R instruments have strong collection and recycling levers. I recommend an explicit "Prevention & Reuse" pillar with budget lines for pilot siting, rental offsets, measurement, reporting and verification, as well as community engagement.

I ask NEA to consider grant schemes to incentivise re-use solutions, on top of its current emphasis on recycle and waste management. The 3R Fund, Eco Fund and related grant schemes should also recognise measurable avoidance, so prevention is funded on outcomes, just like in the case of recycling tonnage.

Recently, it was reported that 84 paper SGRecycle bins were removed due to lack of sponsors. The Government could consider reclassifying some of these recycling points into reuse or refill points as waste-prevention infrastructure, so that public sites can host them under green allocations. Such reuse or refilling points would help to reduce packaging upstream, avoiding what would otherwise go into the blue recycling bins or the green general-waste bins.

I hope the Minister for Sustainability and Environment will consider this request and review the scope of its incentive schemes.

The second carrot is to incentivise BYO – or the acronym for “Bring Your Own”. Businesses in support of sustainability have put their money where their mouth is, to reduce single-use plastic cups. For instance, customers of Starbucks and Toast Box, who bring their own cups, will enjoy savings of 60 cents and 10 cents respectively for their beverages. This practice is a four-time winner because customers save money, businesses enjoy green branding, Government spend less on waste collection and incineration, and toxic waste and CO2 on our planet is reduced.

In August, a BYO campaign was started in the National University of Singapore (NUS) campus to encourage the community to bring their own cups, bottles and tumblers. Previously, a takeaway drink would cost $1.70, whereas it is now $1.90 if a disposable cup is used. If one brings his or her own cup, one would get a 60-cent discount, making it $1.30. This BYO campaign is supported by all nine food courts and canteens across the entire campus.

Three months in, many students have started to bring their own cups, so they do feel that this discount has incentivised them to reduce plastic waste and they are quite happy about the money they are saving! This is a positive example of how concerted efforts by NUS and their business partners can change consumer behaviour.

The Government and businesses can certainly do a lot more to accelerate the BYO movement. I would call for all our coffee shop and food court chains, to join in this BYO movement, to give a discount to customers who bring their own cups. After all, for every cup that is not used, the drink stalls will also save on their operating costs.

The Government could also encourage large F&B chains and public venues such as malls, campuses and hawker centres to adopt returnable cups and containers for dine-in customers. Where feasible, they should track return rate and litter reduction metrics.

The Government can give a carrot to reward businesses that are pro-health and pro-environment. This carrot will hardly cost the Government any resource. I would ask the Singapore Food Agency to consider adding a new criterion in their Food Hygiene Recognition Scheme. A Green Mark rating could be given to F&B operators that adopt environmentally-friendly measures such as offering BYO discounts to customers or use sustainable packaging materials. This Green Mark rating will be an effective differentiator for discerning customers who care about the planet and their health and saving some money will be a bonus.

From 1 April 2026, NEA will roll out the Beverage Containers Return Scheme. This is a good scheme to incentivise recycling and reduce waste, by returning 10 cents for each plastic or metal container returned to the reverse vending machines. Hopefully, over time there will be fewer plastic bottles and metal cans trash on our streets. More importantly, I hope the Beverage Containers Return Scheme will boost our dismal plastics recycling rate.

We also need to drive greater consumer awareness about the harmful impact of single-use plastics, to both our environment and our health. Perhaps what we need now is a new slogan to reignite the BYO movement. It could go like this: BYO: A Greener Planet, A Healthier You.

I was recently in Switzerland. The streets and the lakes are clean and there was hardly any trash. In cafes and supermarkets, few items were placed inside plastic containers. People bring along their own cups and bottles. The BYO culture is a big part of the Swiss society.

Back in 1984, our then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong, had set a target for Singapore to meet the Swiss standard of living. In terms of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, we have indeed caught up with the Swiss. But in terms of our respect for the environment, I think we will need to do more.

I hope our Government and our people will continue to strive towards the Swiss standard of sustainability. In fact, a standard of living would be better measured in health and sustainability than it is by GDP, because all the wealth in the world cannot buy back ruined health nor a damaged environment.

I hope the Government will carefully consider my two proposals. In fact, we should continue to incentivise and implement more good ideas that will drive the reduction of single-use plastics in our society. Additionally, with less trash generated, the cost of waste collection and incineration will reduce. The savings should be ploughed back to promote more circular economy solutions.

This move will not come without sacrifice – inconvenience, time spent, old habits disrupted, new behaviour and change is seldom welcome. But it will be worthwhile. Every big change starts with a single small act. Ultimately, it is our choice. I choose good health and a green environment, over the convenience of single-use plastics. I hope more Singaporeans will make the same choice. And I call for our Government to make the right policies that will help people make the right choice. Because the real carrots are not the two small ones I have outlined, but the innumerable benefits we reap in good health and a green planet. [Applause.]