Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, for decades, sellers have been providing buyers with carrier bags free-of-charge. Obviously, the cost of the bags has already been priced in and bundled with the selling prices of the products for sale. With the implementation of the disposable carrier bag charge, how would the Ministry ensure that the participating businesses pass on the cost savings from the plastic bags to consumers?

I would also like to ask what would be the estimated amount of carbon reduction derived from the decreased production of bags, in addition to the environmental impact, especially the harm caused to marine life.

What is the possibility of getting supermarkets and other stores to switch to alternatives, such as biodegradable bags? Would the Ministry work with retailers and supermarkets to increase the availability of such bags?

As for beverage containers, I would like to ask how the Ministry will ensure that return points for the containers are easily accessible beyond supermarkets. I support making it compulsory for supermarkets to have collection points as many people buy their drinks from there. Would there be return points at coffee shops, hawker centres and food courts as well? With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments in the Bill because it is a much-needed step towards a zero-waste Singapore. We need a comprehensive strategy to tackle plastic waste that also considers reasonable lifestyle changes for all Singapore residents. This is the only way to ensure that our efforts to tackle plastic bag problems will be sustainable over the long term.

One is the issue of proper bagging of waste, especially food waste, before disposal. If we do not provide reasonable alternatives, we are simply pushing the problem of people obtaining plastic bags from supermarkets to other sources. Many residents ask me how they can bag their rubbish going forward as they find five cents per bag pretty expensive. Surely, we do not want residents throwing their rubbish, especially food waste, directly into the rubbish chutes, in order to save on the cost of bags. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] One challenge is the issue of the proper bagging of waste, especially food waste, before disposal.

If we do not provide a reasonable alternative, we are simply pushing the problem of people obtaining plastic bags from supermarkets to other sources. Many residents ask me how they can bag their rubbish going forward, as they find five cents per bag quite expensive.

Surely, we do not want residents throwing their rubbish, especially food waste, directly into the rubbish chutes, in order to save on the cost of bags.

(In English): Are there concerted efforts to support local-level composting or centralised food waste collection solutions? This will also help to close the food waste loop in Singapore, even for households. Will the Ministry be implementing initiatives similar to the Bloobox? Can we build on that?

Lastly, will the Ministry also support the adoption of biodegradable alternatives to plastic bags? Such products can be launched on a wide scale through supermarkets and wet markets.

Mr Speaker, I commend the Ministry for Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) for tightening the regulations around carrier bags for brick-and-mortar retailers. Countries, such as Kenya, Rwanda and our neighbour, Thailand, have introduced stringent rules on the production and usage of plastic bags. Kenya, in particular, has implemented what has been called "the world's strictest plastic ban" and banned all single-use plastic bags throughout the country. Three years after they did so, some of their national parks began disallowing all single-use plastics on the premises. Although they did this primarily to tackle the littering problem, they have also successfully reduced plastic waste.

I hope that the measures this House is debating are merely the start towards our equally ambitious measures. Reducing use of plastic bags in brick-and-mortar businesses is an excellent start and I hope MSE can go beyond by also looking into the online retail space.

Since the pandemic, many more have been shopping online. In 2022, the World Wide Fund for Nature Singapore (WWF Singapore) found in their study that a total of 200,000 e-commerce parcels from various platforms are delivered across Singapore each day and this number is projected to grow by approximately 50% by 2025.

Merchants from e-commerce platforms are especially generous with their packaging, often using layers of bubble wrap and other materials. Sometimes, we find our items to be very small, but the boxes to be very big. Granted, retailers do so to ensure that products are delivered in good condition to their buyers and we can hardly fault them for that.

But there is a massive amount of packaging involved in these shipments and deliveries. Out of the 1.56 million tonnes of household waste generated in Singapore in 2018, approximately one-third was packaging. How does MSE plan to control the large amount of packaging used for online shopping deliveries?

It is heartening to know that some companies in the private sector are already initiating efforts to reduce and reuse packaging. Can the Government accelerate these efforts by introducing a "sustainable packaging" mark? This mark would indicate to online customers that the packaging used by merchants is either second-hand, compostable or otherwise recycled and, therefore, eco-friendly.

We can work with packaging companies and environmental groups to co-create the minimum sustainability standards that packaging materials should adhere to in order to earn this mark. We can also work with online retail aggregating platforms like Alibaba Express, Taobao, Lazada and Shopee to enrol online retail consumers to rate retailers on their packaging practices.

Such a mark will create collaboration between consumers and online retailers to achieve greener online shopping together. By exercising their purchasing choices in favour of retailers who use second-hand packaging, it will incentivise merchants to adopt less wasteful packaging practices.

In a study by Ipsos last year, 88% of Singaporeans said they were receptive to donating used packaging and 62% of Singaporeans said they were receptive to receiving their products in second-hand packaging – myself included. However, merchants are reluctant to adopt second-hand packaging due to the low cost and easy availability of packaging products – what we call "virgin packaging".

Hence, I believe we should make virgin packaging more costly and less accessible to compel merchants to reuse packaging more since their consumers are already receptive to it. This means that we should find ways to possibly tax the manufacturing, import and/or procurement of plastic or single-use packaging products to increase the cost to merchants, such that it makes more economical sense to adopt greener packaging practices.

Some people may resist this, as the concern is that, merchants will transfer the cost to consumers. However, I do not necessarily see that as a bad thing as it will provide a disincentive for excessive shopping and make consumers more deliberative and conscious about what they are buying and to differentiate between things that are nice to have but not really necessary and reduce wasteful consumption as a whole.

If we were to implement these measures, the Government should work towards the necessary infrastructure enablement to ensure a coordinated system of localised facilities to collect and reuse packaging. It is important that we help merchants with changing their practices to make it as seamless and pain-free as we can.

I look forward also to further details on the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework that MSE announced in 2021. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed measures in this Bill are important steps towards a more sustainable Singapore. I have some clarifications on the proposed measures in the Bill.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that the scheme to charge for disposable plastic bags has been carefully studied for implementation. To ensure the success of this policy, we should learn from the experiences of other countries that have implemented similar policies.

What are some of the challenges that they have faced? What are the key lessons that we can learn from them?

I have received feedback from residents who questioned the need to discourage the use of plastic bags at supermarkets. Many Members have also spoken about this. They argue that these bags are often reused by households to bag rubbish. They have expressed concern that discouraging plastic bag use may result in food waste being thrown directly down rubbish chutes. This leads to other environmental issues, such as the breeding of pests.

Are there plans in place to monitor this situation? Will there be increased enforcement of regulations targeting the failure to properly bag rubbish for disposal?

The Ministry has assured that the public will continue to have access to disposable bags from other sources. This includes those available for bagging fresh produce from supermarkets. Hence, it should not hinder the practice of responsible waste disposal. Even so, this could lead residents to exploit such loopholes by taking extra bags.

Some residents have also shared that since plastic is incinerated in Singapore, their remains take up less space in landfills than other types of waste. They felt that the resources spent on discouraging the use of plastic bags could be better spent on managing other types of waste instead.

How has the Ministry factored in these perspectives in the implementation of the plastic bag charge?

Moreover, while the plastic bag charge is a positive step, it should not be viewed as the ultimate solution. Consumers might start purchasing single-use plastic bags from online and overseas retailers, where they are usually more affordable in bulk.

How will the Ministry tackle this problem and ensure that we are not simply redirecting residents to another source of plastic bags that cannot be recycled? This may cause our residents to pay more, and it will not solve the problem. Will this not impact our less well-off residents?

Another concern regarding the plastic bag charge is that retailers may use their voluntary participation in the scheme as an excuse to incorporate the cost into the prices of their products. In doing so, they continue to give out plastic bags without offering consumers a choice.

This would make it difficult for consumers to know that they are paying for the bags as the charge would be factored into the total bill.

Whilst this may be small and insignificant when compared to the overall cost of the sales, this may constitute profiteering, especially for those who may have brought their own bags.

How will the Ministry ensure that retailers are transparent about the plastic bag charge and that consumers are fully informed about a retailer's plastic bag policy?

It is critical to grant all consumers the freedom to make choices about plastic bag use to achieve the policy's objective. Otherwise, some businesses may take advantage of the situation. Ultimately, consumers will bear the losses.

This brings me to my next point. Is the five-cent charge per plastic bag enough to discourage consumption or should we consider charging more? In fact, some retailers are already charging 10 cents per bag.

I understand that supermarkets will be required to publish information on how the proceeds from the sale of plastic bags would be used for charitable or other environmental causes. Are there existing guidelines as to what constitutes proper use of the funds?

Next, we should also consider expanding the plastic bag charge to cover all single-use disposable plastic items. My colleagues and I have raised concerns about the environmental impact of such items in Parliament before and I have asked about the measures to reduce their use by enterprises. With meetings, gatherings and events resuming in full force, disposable cutlery, plates and cups are, once again, being used at these occasions.

For individuals, many food and beverages (F&B) retailers are already charging for takeaways with disposable containers and single-use cutlery. Therefore, a mandatory charge for disposable items would not be a new concept.

I am of the view that charging for single-use plastic bags is the right step forward as we should discourage waste. Perhaps, when we, as a society, better understand the detrimental impact of plastic pollution on our health and the environment, we may consider a complete ban on single-use plastics as momentary convenience may lead to prolonged harm on our health and on the environment.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise some concerns regarding the beverage container return scheme.

Will this scheme have an impact on karang gunis and waste collectors in the industry, since metal cans and plastic bottles are still sought after? Are there any potential disruptions in the waste management industry that need to be addressed, especially for elderly waste collectors who rely on collecting recyclables to supplement their income?

Could the Ministry mandate the establishment of beverage container return points in the community and in public areas instead of leaving it as a voluntary initiative? It seems reasonable to assume that these return points would be more heavily used, given that many consumers would purchase their beverages online or from heartland retailers, vending machines and supermarkets.

If not, how does the Ministry plan to monitor demand and increase the number of return points, if existing ones prove to be insufficient?

Additionally, how does the scheme take into consideration the needs of seniors and those with mobility limitations who may find it inconvenient to return beverage containers? These individuals would have to incur the extra costs of beverages but may be unable to return the beverage containers for a refund of their deposits.

What measures are in place to engage the public and ensure a high level of awareness and participation rates, particularly during the initial stages of implementation? Will the campaign be promoted in schools and at community events? Will there be publicity materials in stores and public areas, reminding and instructing consumers to utilise the return points?

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some questions regarding the food waste management scheme.

Is the Ministry considering expanding the scheme to cover other types of buildings and premises besides industrial and commercial buildings? Locations which come to mind are the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) cookhouses. Other potential sites may include schools, hospitals and nursing homes.

With on-site classes returning in full force, have there been any recent studies conducted on the amount of food waste generated in these premises? This may serve as an opportunity to raise awareness among National Service recruits and students about the importance of not wasting food. It is important to start educating individuals from a young age.

I note that under current provisions, new buildings must treat food waste on-site. However, with approval from the National Environment Agency (NEA), building managers of new buildings may seek alternative food waste treatment methods located off-site.

Are these off-site facilities designated by NEA? What are the requirements and what is the proximity amongst them? If so, how does the Ministry define whether an off-site facility is adequately close to the buildings to ensure efficient and safe transportation of food waste?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, these initiatives are a step in the right direction towards promoting responsible consumption and changing mindsets in the long term.

Pursuing these initiatives is, ultimately, about balancing business costs and sustainability efforts. Nonetheless, this does not need to be a zero-sum game. More innovative solutions and technology must be explored to make going green less costly and reduce the associated overheads.

Most importantly, we should endeavour not to have waste at all. We must embrace a culture that minimises waste or, even better, no waste, and practises consumption in moderation.

This cannot be the sole responsibility of the Government. Rather, it must be a collective effort of every individual and organisation to make a significant impact on our environment.

A New England proverb puts it most succinctly on how we can do so, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without."

By doing this, we can achieve a greener and more sustainable Singapore for every one. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, which seeks to reduce packaging and food waste.

Consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are, understandably, concerned about higher costs as a result of the new legislation. Allow me to share some of their specific queries.

Supermarket outlets whose operators have an annual turnover of more than $100 million will be required to impose the minimum five-cent charge per carrier bag for purchases made. Does this charge apply to convenience stores like Cheers and 7-Eleven, which are related to the NTUC Fairprice and Dairy Farm groups respectively?

May I clarify, for online orders of groceries by these supermarkets, would the charge also apply to the deliveries made? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] About 80% of our residents' households live in Housing and Development Board and about 16% in condominiums. It is a habit for Singaporeans to put their rubbish into plastic bags before throwing them down the rubbish chutes.

I am concerned that residents will proceed to buy more plastic bags, which may be cheaper than five cents per piece if they buy in bulk. Unfortunately, there seems to be no better material than plastic to bag wet and perishable products.

(In English): I am also concerned that reusable plastic bags, which shoppers are encouraged to bring along, may not be environmentally friendlier if the frequency of usage is low.

Next, regarding the beverage container return scheme, does the scheme operator have the flexibility or room to exercise creativity to entice consumers to recycle plastic bottles and metal cans, such as by refunding the deposits and topping up in the form of supermarket vouchers, in the event the scheme operators are partnering the supermarket chains, which have a better network of outreach, so as to improve the recycling rate?

Would the Minister share what is the average return rate in other countries which had introduced this scheme earlier than Singapore?

I would also like to ask how much space does a single returning point take up, and what would be the estimated monthly cost to operate a returning point? How will the Ministry ascertain the success of this scheme? Will the scheme be funded by taxpayers' money? Are there any Government grants that the beverage producers can tap upon to minimise producer fees which may be passed on to consumers eventually?

I am worried that consumers will likely end up paying more if the recycled material value is lower than the cost of joining and complying with the licensed scheme. The other concern would be over people fighting over used metal cans and plastic bottles at F&B joints or rubbish collection points.

Finally, I have some questions about food waste reporting.

I would like to ask about food manufacturers which also have food catering businesses. May I propose that the food caterers be required to report the leftover food items brought back to their factories as food waste too? Would the Ministry consider penalising food caterers who dump the food waste at clients' places instead of bringing it back to the factories? Are food waste generators required to report the amount of food waste periodically? What are the disclosure requirements?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy that Members from both sides of the House have expressed support on the initiatives proposed in this Bill. Let me address Members' thoughtful comments and suggestions.

First, the disposable carrier bag charge or "bag charge". I am glad that many Members have expressed support for the bag charge, including Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Louis Ng. Indeed, many Members, including Miss Cheng Li Hui, former Member of Parliament, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah as well as non-governmental organisations like Zero Waste SG and WWF Singapore have also called for a charge on disposable bags. Mr Louis Ng, as he noted, has been speaking up about a charge since 2016 and I commend him for his persistence.

We heard these calls. The Government has been studying the experiences of other jurisdictions that have implemented a bag charge. We are also mindful of our local circumstances, where plastic bags are widely used by households to dispose of waste hygienically and where incinerable waste is not directly landfilled. We convened the Citizens' Workgroup in 2020 to tap into diverse views and insights to address the issues of disposables. After we accepted the recommendation to implement a disposable carrier bag charge, we consulted widely to hear different considerations, seek feedback and build collective support.

I am glad that Mr Dennis Tan agrees that it is the excessive use of disposables that we need to tackle. By placing a visible cost on each bag, we will be more sensitive to the impact of our consumption on the environment.

While Ms Joan Pereira raised concerns about cost, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if we should consider charging more to discourage consumption. Indeed, we need to strike a careful balance between creating an effective behavioural nudge and managing the cost impact on households.

Compared to other retail establishments, shoppers tend to make larger purchases at supermarkets and may have to purchase more bags if they forget or do not bring enough reusable bags. We have therefore set the bag charge at a minimum of five cents and most covered supermarket operators will be charging five cents per bag when the bag charge comes into effect. The bag charge can be avoided by bringing our own bags. We all have to play our part for the environment.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Shawn Huang asked about the use of proceeds from the bag charge. Covered supermarket operators have flexibility to decide on the use of proceeds but will need to account to the public for how they were used. Our approach to mandate annual declarations on the use of proceeds ensures that there is transparency and public accountability, while minimising regulatory and compliance costs. I am heartened that all the supermarket operators have indicated that they intend to use the proceeds to support environmental and social causes.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan asked about expansion plans for the bag charge. We will monitor the effectiveness of the bag charge and assess the need to expand coverage. For example, will we observe new behavioural norms where bringing your own bag for shopping becomes second nature? Will more retailers follow suit to voluntarily charge for disposable carrier bags? We can learn from the experience of other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and England, which have taken a phased approach in extending the coverage of the bag charge over time.

Mr Don Wee asked if the bag charge would apply to convenience stores. As I said in my opening speech, operators of Singapore Food Agency (SFA)-licensed supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $100 million will be required to charge for disposable carrier bags at their SFA-licensed supermarket outlets. Convenience stores, such as those operated by Cheers and 7-Eleven that do not sell or prepare raw meats, poultry or seafood, are not required to have supermarket licences and hence, do not come under this legislation. Nonetheless, I note that Cheers and 7-Eleven are already charging for disposable carrier bags voluntarily.

Members have raised clarifications about online grocery purchases. We will prescribe in the subsidiary legislation that the bag charge will not apply to disposable carrier bags used by retailers to bag groceries that are purchased online and delivered to the customer. This is because customers do not have the choice of using their own bags.

Nevertheless, we agree with Ms Carrie Tan that there is scope for online retailers and platforms, not just supermarkets, to reduce packaging waste. We will study how best to address packaging waste from e-commerce, including online grocery shopping, as we develop the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging waste management. In the meantime, we will work with the supermarket operators to compile best practices and develop guidelines on reducing packaging for online purchases. We also encourage other retailers to pursue initiatives to reduce and reuse delivery packaging.

To Mr Shawn Huang's question on annual turnover, this will be determined at the entity level and will not be aggregated at the group level. We will monitor the implementation of the bag charge and assess if there is a need to adjust how annual turnover is determined in the future.

On Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Joan Pereira's concerns about responsible waste disposal, I would like to reiterate that the practice of properly bagging waste before disposing of it in rubbish chutes should still continue. We are not imposing a ban on disposable carrier bags. They will still be available. Other packaging such as the bags that hold bread or toilet rolls can also be used to bag waste as alternatives to supermarket carrier bags.

The bag charge should not be an excuse to dispose of waste in an irresponsible manner. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Don Wee commented that with the bag charge, consumers might start purchasing single-use plastic bags from online and overseas retailers in bulk. While this is possible, these consumers would likely only buy what they really need and be more mindful of how they use the bags, since they would also have to pay for them.

Members like Ms Poh Li San and Mr Dennis Tan spoke about the importance of public education to promote greater understanding of the value of sustainability and effect positive behavourial change. I agree with this. Our nation-wide "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign has been ongoing since 2019. As part of the campaign, we work with many partners including supermarkets and F&B establishments to amplify the message of sustainable living and encourage action through initiatives and incentives.

The campaign aims to help Singaporeans better appreciate why we need to reduce the use of disposables and food wastage and how to do so. The campaign messages are shared across multiple touch points and languages to cater to the wider population. The Government plans to increase public education in conjunction with the commencement of the bag charge.

In the lead-up to 3 July, we will ramp up public awareness efforts together with the supermarket operators. We will remind the public to bring their own bags to avoid the bag charge and offer suggestions on alternatives to supermarket carrier bags for bagging waste. We are also encouraging the supermarket operators to carry out initiatives to support the transition from disposable to reusable bags, such as bring-your-own-bag initiatives and the distribution of reusable carrier bags, especially to lower-income groups.

In the spirit of environmental stewardship, I urge everyone to be mindful not to take more disposable bags than necessary and start bringing our own bags, even before the bag charge commences.

Let me now address the beverage container return scheme. The scheme has seen good results overseas. To Mr Don Wee's question, similar schemes in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Lithuania have consistently achieved return rates of 80% or higher.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have asked about the return point network. Setting up a convenient return point network is a top priority, because it is crucial to the scheme's success. The mandated return points in larger supermarkets will form an important part of the network. At other community spaces and public areas, NEA will work with the scheme operator to encourage premises operators to voluntarily set up return points. Based on the experience overseas, setting up a return point can increase footfall to stores. The scheme operator will also pay handling fees to return point operators as part of the commercial arrangement, to reimburse costs incurred.

The scheme operator will be setting up return points at locations based on considerations, such as footfall and proximity of return points. The Government will also exercise oversight via licensing conditions to ensure a robust network of return points for the public to return beverage containers conveniently.

Mr Don Wee asked about the space taken up by a return point. This would depend on whether the premises operator opts for an over-the-counter return point, or a reverse vending machine (RVM). RVMs range in size, with smaller machines requiring around 0.6 square metres of space and larger ones with higher capacities requiring up to three square meters. Premises operators may work with the scheme operator to determine the optimal RVM size for their premises.

Mr Don Wee asked whether the scheme operator can exercise creativity in boosting recycling rates, such as by offering supermarket vouchers. Return point operators would need to provide a full refund of the deposit amount when the covered beverage container is returned. As highlighted in my opening speech, the 10-cent deposit has been set to provide the necessary behavioural nudge to achieve the desired return rates. That said, we will certainly encourage the scheme operator to work with stakeholders such as return point operators to explore innovative ways to boost return rates.

For example, in addition to the cash option, they could create different options for refund, including supermarket vouchers, rewards points or donation to charity. We see such practices in overseas jurisdictions too. For example, in Australia, consumers are given the option to donate their refunds directly to charity. Beyond this, return point operators may also work with the scheme operator on further promotional initiatives to increase footfall to their stores, if they wish to.

Mr Don Wee asked how the scheme is funded. This is an EPR scheme, where producers are responsible for the collection and recycling of their products. As such, the scheme would be financed by producers, that is, the covered beverage importers and manufacturers. Producers will pay producer fees to the scheme operator to carry out these responsibilities on their behalf.

These fees would be proportional to the beverages they put out to the market. The revenue from the sale of clean, high-quality and high-value recyclables will be utilised by the scheme operator to reduce the scheme costs. The eventual cost pass-through to consumers in beverage prices, if any, will likely be moderated by price competition among industry players. This is also the experience in other countries that have implemented similar schemes.

I appreciate that business costs are a concern. We have also heard this feedback at our consultations with companies. At the same time, many have also expressed their support for this scheme, recognising the importance of sustainability.

We do need to balance cost and environmental considerations, especially in this uncertain economic environment. Therefore, we have taken a consultative and pragmatic approach in developing the scheme.

First, as outlined in my opening speech, we hope to establish an industry-led scheme operator, which is a good practice that we see in jurisdictions overseas. It will have a strong incentive to operate efficiently. It will also be able to tap on the industry's capabilities and resources to improve operational synergies, such as using existing logistics channels to make backhaul trips.

Second, we will continue to support the industry and provide sufficient time for implementation.

In my opening speech, I spoke about how we are adjusting the timeline to implement the scheme based on the industry's feedback. We have also supported the industry with knowledge and capability building. We organised an industry workshop last year and invited an overseas scheme operator to share best practices. We will continue to convene and facilitate discussions and knowledge sharing amongst industry stakeholders.

Third, where possible, we will provide operational flexibility for companies to decide on arrangements that are more cost-effective. For example, producers could consider using stickers for the barcodes and deposit marks, or to directly print them on the beverage container.

Mr Shawn Huang asked about the scenario where the scheme operator fails to meet the return rate target. We place great importance on ensuring that the scheme operator meets the return rate target. I mentioned in my opening speech that we will have a specific and higher financial penalty for missing the target for the beverage container return scheme.

However, we want to avoid this outcome as much as possible. We will support the scheme operator on key scheme aspects that contribute to achieving the return rate, such as public education efforts and deploying a robust return point network.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about measures to raise awareness and participation. Indeed, this is a key area of work that we will partner the scheme operator on. We will need to reach out to all segments of society, as Mr Yip described, and spread the message in our communities. We want to bring everyone on board to do their part for sustainability.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Poh Li San have raised questions and suggestions about the scheme in relation to the broader waste collection industry, including informal waste collectors such as karang gunis. NEA will work with the scheme operator on appropriate measures to cater to them.

For example, the scheme operator could deploy return depots to accept beverage container returns in bulk, similar to arrangements made in other jurisdictions to involve the informal sector in the collection network.

Even as we seek to deploy a network of accessible return points to make returning beverage containers as convenient as possible, we recognise that the elderly and less mobile residents may find it more challenging, as Mr Yip Hon Weng highlighted.

We want to design a scheme where everyone can participate. We will continue to seek out ideas from the community, such as students and community groups, on how we can encourage community support and involvement to make the scheme more accessible to less mobile residents. NEA will work closely with the scheme operator to make the scheme work for these members of our community.

I am glad that Mr Dennis Tan is supportive of the scheme and is even calling for the expansion of the scope to glass bottles and beverage cartons.

We are, first, targeting plastic bottles and metal cans because they are easy to collect, compactible and have high material value. They also comprise about 70% of beverage containers put to market. Including glass bottles or beverage cartons would add complexity and cost to collection logistics and infrastructure. They will continue to be recycled under the National Recycling Programme after the scheme begins. We will monitor the scheme closely and assess the need to expand coverage, if necessary, or to include them in future phases of the wider EPR scheme for packaging.

Mr Shawn Huang asked how the scheme would work for cross-border commercial activities, such as food and beverage services onboard aircrafts and ships. There are varying circumstances in how the beverages are supplied to aircraft and ships, as well as where the beverage containers are then disposed of. NEA has been engaging the industry to develop suitable arrangements for such activities.

Finally, on the new food waste reporting requirements.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if we would consider requiring other types of buildings, such as SAF cookhouses, schools and hospitals, to segregate food waste for treatment and submit reports.

Under GreenGov.SG, public sector buildings with food and beverage or F&B establishments will segregate the food waste for on-site or off-site treatment from 2024. This will include SAF cookhouses, schools and public hospitals.

Some public sector buildings have already done so. For instance, several polytechnics have introduced food waste segregation measures and installed on-site food waste digesters at F&B areas within their premises. For non-public sector buildings, we will explore extending the segregation and reporting requirements to more types of buildings over time.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Shawn Huang asked about off-site food waste treatment for new buildings.

NEA will not determine which off-site treatment facility building managers should send their food waste to. Building managers can determine this based on their business considerations and submit their proposal for NEA's approval. Our intent is to encourage higher value-added processes, such as valorising food by-products into animal feed ingredients or even food products. More details on the approval criteria will be provided when ready. The food waste must be transported by licensed general waste collectors in a manner that safeguards public health.

Mr Don Wee suggested that food caterers should take back leftover food from their clients' events for segregation and reporting. He asked if we would consider imposing penalties on those who dispose of the food waste at the clients' premises.

It is primarily the consumers' responsibility to avoid food wastage by ordering just enough food for their guests. We encourage everyone to adopt such sustainable practices to minimise food waste from catering events.

Mr Don Wee asked about food waste reporting requirements and frequency. To minimise compliance burden, we will only require key data to be submitted annually, such as the building-level tonnages.

Mr Louis Ng asked if we would consider requiring food donation amounts to be reported. We will not require this as donated food is not food waste. We agree that donating excess food which is safe for consumption will reduce the amount of food waste, and the latter will be reported.

Regarding the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, MSE, with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), will continue to work closely with Mr Ng's team on this.

Ms Joan Pereira asked if there is any support provided for community food waste collection and composting solutions to close the food waste loop for households. Ms Pereira will be glad to know that the SG Eco Fund has supported many such initiatives in the community, such as food waste collection drives, composting and gardening workshops, as well as initiatives that mobilise residents to bring their food waste to a central collection point to be turned into compost for their local community gardens.

Under the Green Action for Communities movement, we are hearing good ideas from residents, including on handling food waste. MSE and Green Plan agencies will work with residents to bring these ideas to fruition.

Let me conclude. The proposed changes set out in this Bill represent our next steps in this journey towards zero waste and a circular economy. In particular, the beverage container return scheme and disposable carrier bag charge will require individuals to adjust their daily lives and their daily habits.

Life-as-usual and business-as-usual cannot continue if we are to responsibly steward our resources and environment. Each of us has a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions, conserve Semakau Landfill and enhance resource resiliency. By reducing waste and recycling right, we can do our part to combat climate change and ensure that Singapore remains clean, green and liveable.

I call on all Members of the House to give our support to this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification for Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. As we know, the plastic bag charge scheme will start with the larger supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $100 million.

I just wanted to ask for the Government's position on the retailers who are not currently covered by this $100 million point. If they would voluntarily want to impose a plastic bag charge and if, for example, they are going to charge more than what the supermarkets are going to charge, what is the Government's position on this and what is the recourse that Singaporeans may have if they feel that this may come up and this may amount to profiteering or something like that?

Currently, there are already retailers who are voluntarily charging for bags and the bag charge actually varies. So, really, this is a commercial decision. It is also part of their sustainability drive if they are into this, and we will leave it to them, and the consumers have a choice of whether to patronise these retailers.

What we have done is for the covered supermarkets, we have mandated a charge of at least five cents and, as I have said, most of the supermarkets that are covered will be charging five cents per bag. For us, we have mandated a low charge of five cents because we are also cognisant of the fact that most people get their disposable bags from the supermarket and if they shop in supermarkets, they tend to require more bags and, if they forget to bring their reusable bags, then they will have to pay for that.