Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Plastics, which are made from non-renewable fossil fuels, contribute to our carbon emissions when they are produced, transported and incinerated at end-of-life. Plastic pollution, especially in the form of transboundary marine litter, is a global problem, spoiling our environment and causing harm to wildlife. Curbing our use of plastics would protect our environment and conserve finite resources.

However, plastics, including single-use plastics, have many important uses and continue to be an essential aspect in many aspects of our daily lives. For example, it is a key component in personal protective equipment and disposable masks. Many Singaporeans also use plastic bags to dispose of trash hygienically.

Plastics are not the enemy here. The littering, wasteful use and unnecessary disposal of plastics are. While we share a common global problem of plastic pollution, we do not necessarily share a common solution. Every country has a different context, characterised by unique circumstances.

Take littering, for instance. Many countries are plagued by indiscriminate littering of plastics. Inadequate or poorly maintained waste disposal facilities can also cause plastics to leak into the environment. In Singapore, our strong stance against littering, along with an effective waste management system, has limited the leakage of plastics.

Likewise, because plastics can persist in the environment for many years if they are directly landfilled, some countries are introducing regulations to ban or restrict single-use plastics, and companies are responding by switching to biodegradable substitutes like paper, biodegradable plastics or wood. However, biodegradable materials do not offer the same incremental benefit in Singapore, where all incinerable waste is not directly landfilled, but is either recycled or properly disposed of at waste-to-energy plants.

In addition, every material type requires precious resources, like water, energy, fossil fuels and trees, for their production, transportation and disposal. All these materials also leave behind a carbon footprint.

Hence, the most effective way to reduce our environmental impact is to reduce our use of all types of materials, not just plastics. Where we cannot eliminate the use of materials, we need to find effective ways of aggregating them for recycling where possible. This is where the Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill comes in.

With the disposable carrier bag charge, we hope to nudge Singaporeans to reduce their use of disposable carrier bags, including plastic bags. With the beverage container return scheme, we will put in place a better system to extract clean and valuable streams of plastic and metal recyclables.

Let me explain each initiative.

The disposable carrier bag charge is, first and foremost, a behavioural nudge. Disposable carrier bags will remain available at retail establishments, but making the cost of the bag visible in supermarkets prompts us to pause and consider how many we really need. It is a reminder to bring our own reusable bags and to reduce the use of disposables – an essential feature of sustainable living. The charge was a recommendation of a 2020 Citizens’ Workgroup, and we have engaged the public and supermarket operators extensively on the policy details. A new Part 4A will be introduced to give effect to the charge, which will commence on 3 July this year.

Under section 23F, a registered retailer will be required to charge a minimum of five cents per bag provided to customers. We have kept the minimum charge low to moderate the cost impact on shoppers, while encouraging them to be mindful of the number of bags they take.

We will prescribe that operators of SFA-licensed supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $100 million, will be required to register with NEA under section 23B. Registered retailers may apply to be deregistered if their annual turnover does not exceed $100 million for each of three consecutive years, or if they are no longer a regulated retailer.

Section 23H will require registered retailers to communicate this charge to their customers and set it out separately in receipts where provided. This will strengthen the behavioural nudge.

To monitor compliance, section 23I will require registered retailers to report data to the National Environment Agency (NEA). For public accountability and transparency on the use of proceeds, section 23K will require registered retailers to publish information on the number of bags issued, the amount of proceeds collected and how the proceeds were used.

The Bill will also give effect to a beverage container return scheme. This is an extended producer responsibility scheme, where producers are made responsible for the collection and recycling of beverage containers like plastic bottles and metal cans that they put on the market.

Producers, typically, rely on a scheme operator to carry out these responsibilities. A deposit will be collected for each beverage product covered by the scheme, or "covered beverage product", and refunded fully when empty beverage containers are returned at designated return points. While the scheme is well-established in many jurisdictions around the world, it is the first in Southeast Asia and one of the first few in Asia. The scheme will be a pathfinder for Singapore in our move towards a circular economy, especially for plastics.

Singapore's recycling rate for plastics is low, at only 6%. The scheme will aggregate a stream of clean and high-quality plastic and metal recyclables. The plastic bottles collected will comprise mostly PET, or polyethylene terephthalate, a valuable fraction that is highly sought-after by companies looking to use a higher proportion of recycled PET, or rPET, in their containers to fulfil their sustainability commitments. This rPET can be manufactured into new containers, breathing life into the circular model.

The beverage container return scheme was a recommendation of a 2019 Citizens’ Workgroup. To design a scheme suitable for Singapore, my Ministry and NEA conducted over two years of engagements with stakeholders. Let me share the details of the framework.

I announced at the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's (MSE's) Committee of Supply (COS) debates that the scheme will cover plastic bottles and metal cans with volumes ranging from 150 millimetres to three litres. These have high material value and are easy to collect, compact and recycle.

I also shared that an 80% return rate target will be imposed on the scheme operator. We will move progressively towards this and set a return rate target of 60% and 70% in the first and second year respectively. At the steady state of 80%, this is estimated to amount to around 800 million beverage containers collected for recycling annually.

Now, on to further details of the scheme.

We will be prescribing a deposit amount of 10 cents per container to begin with. This amount takes into account public feedback, as well as the experience of other jurisdictions. In a recent REACH public consultation, the majority of respondents, about 84%, indicated that a deposit amount of 10 cents or higher would be suitable. A higher deposit would encourage participation and a higher return rate, but we do not want the deposit to be too high such that it deters purchases of pre-packaged beverages. Hence, on balance, we determined that a 10-cent deposit per container would suffice to help achieve an 80% return-rate target.

To ensure a robust return point network, Singapore Food Agency (SFA)-licensed supermarkets with a floor area of more than 200 square metres, which comprises about 400 supermarkets, will be required to set up return points. Supermarkets are ideal for this role, as they are major sales channels of beverages and preferred by respondents in our public consultations as return point locations.

This approach of deploying return points at supermarkets is proven to be efficient and associated with high return rates in overseas jurisdictions. To enhance convenience and encourage consumer participation, we will also work with the scheme operator and other stakeholders to establish additional return points in other accessible locations in the community.

To give effect to the scheme, we will introduce a new Part 4B.

Section 23O will require all producers, that is, importers and manufacturers of covered beverage products, to join the licensed scheme.

Section 23P will require containers of covered beverage products to be labelled: first, with a deposit mark for customers to identify covered beverage products; and second, with a barcode to facilitate the acceptance of empty beverage containers at return points.

Section 23Q makes it clear that the deposit is not part of the price of the beverage product. The beverage container or the use of the beverage container, is, therefore, not subject to the Goods and Services Tax.

The deposit, which is first provided by the producer to the scheme operator under section 23R, must be collected by every supplier for each covered beverage product the supplier sells.

Section 23S mandates that certain persons must set up return points.

Section 23U requires return point operators to refund the deposit when an empty beverage container is returned, except under certain circumstances, such as if the deposit mark or barcode is so damaged that it cannot be read or scanned.

We will also be amending Part 6 of the RSA, which provides for the licensing of the producer responsibility scheme operator.

For the beverage container return scheme, a not-for-profit, industry-led scheme operator is preferred. This is similar to successful schemes in other jurisdictions, such as Norway and Denmark.

As the scheme is owned and run by the industry, the scheme operator will be able to tap on the industry’s capabilities and resources. It will also have a strong incentive to operate it efficiently and effectively, to keep scheme costs low for all parties.

I am happy to share that a number of beverage producers have expressed interest to jointly support the establishment of the scheme operator. My Ministry and NEA will continue to engage industry players on the appointment of a suitable scheme operator. More details will be announced in due course.

The scheme operator will be licensed under the existing Part 6, with a few additions.

There is a need to safeguard the interests of various stakeholders, for example, if the scheme operator is led by larger producers. A new section 29A will enable the Minister to prescribe requirements for up to one-third of the scheme operator's key appointment holders, and to require the scheme operator to obtain NEA's approval for these key appointments.

To deter the beverage container return scheme operator from missing the return-rate target, section 32 will be amended to introduce a new, higher financial penalty of up to $500,000 if the scheme operator does not meet the return rate target. Additional safeguards will be introduced, under section 32, to ensure that the power to impose financial penalties is exercised appropriately. NEA, in determining the amount of financial penalty, will be required to consider a list of factors, such as the nature, gravity and duration of the non-compliance.

We have been engaging the industry closely on the details of the scheme. The beverage producers who have expressed interest to jointly support the formation of the scheme operator are seriously looking at implementation details, such as setting up return points and the printing of the deposit mark and barcode for beverage containers. Bearing in mind the size of the task ahead, they have requested for more time to implement the scheme. They have proposed that the scheme go live from 1 April 2025, which is approximately two years from the date of passing of legislation.

We hear this feedback. While we want to move quickly to facilitate a shift towards a more sustainable way of doing business, we understand that the industry needs time to plan and set up a robust and effective scheme. This is to ensure smooth implementation at the ground for the multiple stakeholders of the scheme, beyond the manufacturers and importers to the F&B operators and consumers.

Therefore, we have taken in the proposal and the scheme will go live from 1 April 2025. Thereafter, a grace period of three months will be provided for the beverage and retail industry to clear unlabelled stock, which will not carry a deposit. By 1 July 2025, all covered beverage products supplied must be labelled, and all suppliers must collect a deposit for each covered beverage product sold.

We will continue to support and engage the industry as they work to fulfil their obligations under the scheme. Prior to the commencement date, we will also work with the appointed scheme operator on education and outreach efforts to prepare consumers and other stakeholders for the scheme.

We are also building on earlier foundations laid in the RSA to close the food waste loop. Food waste is a priority waste stream due to its high generation and low recycling rates. When food is wasted, so are all the resources used to cultivate, process and prepare it. With growing pressures on food supply chains and resource availability, we must rethink wasteful linear models and capture value from food waste.

To promote resource recovery for food waste, we introduced segregation and treatment requirements in 2019. The requirements are intended to apply to industrial and commercial buildings, such as hotels, shopping malls and factories, which are large generators of food waste.

In addition to facilitating the treatment or conversion of food waste into useful products, such as new food products or animal feed, other benefits include reduction in disamenities, such as odour and pest nuisance, at the premises.

We are also investing in critical infrastructure to ensure sufficient food waste treatment capacity. Construction of the food waste treatment facility at Tuas Nexus is ongoing and forms part of our efforts to support the industry in treating the segregated food waste.

To complement segregation and treatment requirements, we will be introducing a new requirement for building managers to submit food waste reports to the NEA under section 27C. This will raise awareness on the amount of food waste generated and encourage building managers to pursue waste minimisation opportunities.

To ensure minimal burden on building managers, we have simplified data requirements to key information, such as the overall building-level tonnages. In the long run, reducing food waste and segregating food waste for treatment could also reduce costs for businesses, such as by reducing waste disposal costs downstream and reaping value from transforming food waste into higher value products.

We will stagger the implementation of the food waste segregation, treatment and reporting requirements.

For new buildings, the requirements will commence from 1 January 2024. These are buildings for which application for planning approval was submitted on or after 1 January 2021. For existing buildings, the requirements will commence progressively from the second half of 2025.

Part 5 of the RSA, which has not yet come into force, will be repealed and re-enacted to allow for the staggered implementation. With more circular production practices emerging, there are increasing possibilities to transform food waste into higher-value products. For example, waste bread can be used to make beverages and spent grains from breweries can be processed into powder to be used as ingredients for food products. Therefore, our revised regulatory framework will also provide flexibility to enable the pursuit of these innovative food waste treatment methods.

Under the original Part 5, building managers of new buildings must cause segregated food waste to be treated onsite. The new section 27B will retain this requirement, but also allow segregated food waste to be treated off-site with NEA's approval.

Under the original Part 5, building occupiers of both new and existing buildings must use the segregation and treatment arrangements provided by their building managers. The new section 27 will allow building occupiers of both new and existing buildings to pursue food waste segregation and treatment arrangements separate from those provided by the building manager, with NEA's approval.

In assessing whether approval will be granted, NEA will take into consideration if the proposed treatment methods process food waste into higher-value products.

Let me conclude. At its core, the issue of waste stems from human actions and choices. Likewise, the ultimate solution to achieve zero waste and a circular economy lies not in regulations or technologies, but with us.

With the Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill, we are putting in place stronger measures for individuals and the private sector to reduce waste and recycle more to achieve circularity. But these measures are merely a means to an end. The goal for these initiatives must be to catalyse a change that extends beyond the boundaries of the initiatives themselves. They must cultivate new behaviours and encourage a sustainable way of life amongst Singaporeans.

The amendments to the RSA will help to get everyone to pitch in for sustainability.

The private sector will need to establish circular business models to properly collect and treat their beverage products at end-of-life. Building managers and occupiers will need to track the amount of food waste generated and provide space to segregate food waste for treatment.

As individuals and consumers, we will need to rinse and segregate empty beverage containers so that we can return them for recycling and a refund of our deposit. We will also need to remember to bring our shopping bags when leaving the house.

But we will make this shift knowing that it is the right thing to do, that it is good for the environment and for future generations, and so that we can take pride in the stewardship of our resources and our country and do our part in our global fight against plastic pollution and climate change. Our journey towards zero waste will not be easy, but I can say with every confidence that it will be a rewarding one. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

*Question proposed.*

Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. This amendment Bill seeks to introduce three main requirements to the Act: (a) introduce a plastic bag charge scheme starting with the larger supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $100 million; (b) introduce a beverage container return scheme; and (c) require the segregation and treatment of food waste in prescribed buildings with requisite reporting to the authorities.

I will start with the plastic bag charge.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, back in 2018, when it was declared the Year of Climate Action in Singapore, I had spoken during the COS debate and I asked the Government whether it had any intention to roll out a progressive plan to reduce the use of plastic disposables in Singapore involving either the restriction or the banning of single-use plastic carrier bags, straws and disposable cups, containers and utensils.

I had mentioned that Taiwan had just, then, announced a blanket ban in single-use plastics, including straws, cups and shopping bags, by 2030. Prior to that, there was a progressive plan to make people pay for plastic products like plastic bags, straws, disposable food containers and disposable utensils in the interim.

Back then, there was already more than 40 countries taxing or limiting the use of plastic bags. The evidence had shown that even modest policy interventions can have significant impact. In Britain, the usage of plastic carrier bags fell by 83% after the introduction of a plastic bag charge.

In 2020, the Workers' Party called for the introduction of a single-use plastic bag charge phased-in over five years. I repeated this call in my Budget debate speech in 2021. I, therefore, welcome the imposition of a plastic bag charge to be formally included under today's amendment of the Resource Sustainability Act.

I am also heartened that Senior Minister of State Amy Khor recently cited statistics in Hong Kong, Taiwan and the United Kingdom (UK), where after the introduction of a plastic bag charge in those countries, their usage of plastic carrier bags fell. I quoted the example of the UK in this House five years ago. I am glad that the Government accepted the recommendations of the Citizens' Workgroup on Reducing Excessive Consumption of Disposables to impose a plastic bag charge.

The Government has also announced that the charge to be imposed will come into effect in mid-2023 to "nudge consumers to shift towards the use of reusable bags". This nudging is extremely important as we are talking about the long-term habits of individuals.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I have, for the last few years in this House been calling for mindsets to shift in the way we use single-use plastic bags – to only use what we need to use.

In 2018, in response to my call for a plastic bag charge in comparison with other countries like Taiwan and the UK, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said, "Miss Cheng Li Hui and Mr Dennis Tan asked about our efforts to deal with plastic waste and, specifically, whether we will impose a charge or ban on single-use plastic bags. Unlike many of the countries that have imposed a ban or mandatory charge on plastic bags, we do not directly landfill our plastic disposables but incinerate them. Hence, we do not face the land and water pollution issues that plague those countries. Plastic bags are also necessary for responsible and hygienic bagging of waste in our moist, tropical climate. Unbagged household waste attracts pests like cockroaches and rats, creating serious environmental and health problems."

She also said that, "There are actually good reasons that single-use plastic bags have to be given or used by the public for bagging their waste. Therefore, the issue is really about excessive use – not that you cannot use plastic bags, but excessive use of plastic bags."

I agreed with her, then and now, that plastic bags are needed for the bagging of waste and that the issue is about excessive use of plastic bags. I also thought, then and now, that the fact that we incinerate our rubbish does not remove the need to educate and persuade Singaporeans to try to reduce our plastic bag consumption and to consider greater measures to reduce the use of plastic bags. Hence, my suggestion for a plastic bag charge back in 2018.

In 2020, I said in my Budget debate speech that mindsets must shift in the way we consume – to only use what we need to use. For single-use plastic bags, I had asked – can we take or use what we really need? Can we pack more things into each plastic bag? Do we really need to double-bag all our groceries at the checkouts? If we only need to use, say, one or two plastic bags for very few disposals a day, do we need to take 20 bags from the supermarket in a week?

We can also reduce the number of single-use plastic bags we need to take for our refuse, by concurrently using good quality reusable shopping bags. We may end up using fewer plastic bags and may still have enough bags for our refuse.

In my 2021 COS debate cut for MSE, I reiterated my call for mindsets to shift in the way we consume, to only use what we need to use and called for less use of plastic bags.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would reiterate what I have said previously, on the use of plastic bags. Indeed, while the plastic bag charge will certainly nudge behaviours when people feel the pinch of having to pay for plastic bags, what is more important, I feel, is that we must get all Singaporeans to understand fully: why we are doing this; why we need to reduce plastic bag use; how we can reduce plastic bag production; how we should reduce the number of plastic bags we incinerate every day; and, most of all, to internalise them in our minds so that they instinctively guide our everyday actions. I would like to call on the Government to ramp up on our public messaging to Singaporeans of different age groups.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am also glad that the Government is encouraging reusable bags. I have been using such bags for supermarket shopping for many years – a habit I first had when I was a student abroad. In my 2021 COS debate cut for MSE, I reiterated the call to use more good quality reusable shopping bags in supermarkets or retail shops. Last year, our Aljunied-Hougang Town Council gave a reusable shopping bag to each of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) households in Aljunied and Hougang Town. I hope it will be a useful reminder to our residents to use more good reusable bags and minimise the use of plastic bags.

We have come a long way, even in the last few years, but I hope that, with the plastic bag charge, mindsets will change for those who are used to taking many plastic bags at the supermarket. We need to remind ourselves to only take what we absolutely need.

I would like to ask the Government whether it has any plans to increase public education to encourage less use of plastic bags, in conjunction with the imposition of this charge. Can the Government share its staged plans, if any, to extend the plastic bag charge beyond its current category of retailers of more than $100 million turnover?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill also introduces a beverage container return scheme, which allows a refund of the additional fee imposed when a person buys a beverage in a plastic bottle and metal can.

I support this scheme and I think it can significantly reduce the amount of plastic bottles and metal cans, which are currently being disposed of instead of being deliberately recycled via recycling bins and other proper ways. When we are out, there may not always be a recycling bin in sight when we want to dispose of our drink can or bottle after we have consumed the beverage. I can imagine the number of bottles or cans which are thrown into normal rubbish bins every day and taken to our refuse incinerator.

Also, although many Singaporeans have developed good recycling habits or practices, many are still not doing so. Singapore is not even at the stage as some first-world countries are where households are required to segregate their waste in different categories, such as general waste, paper, plastic, glass, metal, and so on. We are using one recycling bin for different waste but, sadly, it is a common sight to see general waste and contaminated materials being thrown into recycling bins.

Madam, there is still much for us to do to improve our public education efforts.

I believe that the beverage return scheme will minimise wrongful disposal, encourage more recycling and inculcate better recycling habits. Like the plastic bag charge, the beverage container return scheme is, sadly, a form of enforced public education. But it will bring certain knowledge to those who are hitherto ignorant or indifferent to recycling.

I would like to ask the Minister to share with the House, how extensive is the projected availability of the beverage return vending machines. This is important as it complements retail outlets at venues where the beverage containers can be returned. Convenience will certainly enhance greater cooperation and compliance and affect the success of the programme.

We are told by NEA and MSE that packaging waste constitutes about one-third of domestic waste disposed of and about 60% of this is plastic waste and that, in 2021, only 6% of plastic waste disposed of was recycled.

I hope to see a significant reduction in the volume of such waste being sent to our incinerators after the beverage container return scheme and the plastic bag charge scheme are introduced. I also look forward to the scheme being extended to glass and beverage cartons soon.

I would like to ask the Minister, what are the Government's staged plans for further expansion of this beverage container scheme, including the projected time when the scheme will be expanded to glass, as I believe that a lot of glass and even carton waste can be further diverted away from incineration and be recycled, and Singaporeans can be encouraged to work towards this goal. Before I leave this point, and as a follow-up to my COS cut in 2018 on a similar topic, I am also going to ask the Minister for an update on the Government's plans, if any, to reduce the use of styrofoam food and beverage containers, which are still widely used.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will next touch on the segregation and reporting of food waste, as required under the proposed amendments to the Act.

When I was a little boy, I remember being reminded by my parents to finish every bit of food on my plate and being told off for wasting food. Some of us will remember being told by our parents that we have to finish every single grain of rice in our bowl.

Why is curbing food waste important? It is important to curb food wastage because other resources have been invested to grow the food ingredients as well as the cooking of the ingredients for consumption.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP's) Food Waste Index Report 2021, 17% of our food ends up being wasted in retail and by consumers, particularly in households. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, food that is lost, which accounts for food that is grown, harvested and prepared for consumption right up to just before the retail stage and food that is wasted, which is food wasted at the household, retail or food service stages onwards, could feed up to 1.26 billion hungry people every year.

Nearer home, according to a 2019 Singapore Environment Council study, one in three Singaporeans throw away more than 10% of food weekly and this amounts to about $342 million of wasted food a year. Further, food waste has grown by 20% in the past decade in Singapore.

According to UNEP's Executive Director, Mr Inger Andersen, each person is said to waste an average of 74 kilogrammes of food every year in all the middle- and high-income countries in the world.

Why is cutting food waste important? According to UNEP, 8% to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions are associated with food that is not consumed. Wasted food meant wasted efforts and resources in producing them, including land, fertilisers, water, packaging, transportation, fuel and so on.

Food waste may also be deposited in landfills, increasing the production of methane emissions. Even in Singapore, where we burn our waste before depositing in landfill, cutting down waste food will also greatly reduce the amount of waste we incinerate and, to some extent, ultimately dumped in landfills.

According to NEA, food waste accounts for 12% of our total waste in Singapore by 2021. We need to work on its reduction. Reducing food waste will also be of great help in making our progress towards our climate goals, including our 2030 emission targets.

That brings us to why we need to do food waste segregation and reporting. Segregation and reporting are the first step to help us to realise and account for our food waste. A retailer or food service provider can, accordingly, be better guided to take actions to reduce food waste and/or even direct food waste to better mitigation measures. Unsold or unconsumed food can be passed on to food banks and charities for consumption by the less privileged. They can also be converted to composts, animal feed or biofuel gases as they are being done in other countries.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls for the halving of per-capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and the reduction of food losses along production and supply chains, otherwise referred to as the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target of 12.3. Achieving this target would have significant implications for the fight against climate change. UNEP's Food Waste Index Report supports the goals of SDG 12.3, with its comprehensive and reliable food waste data collection, analysis and modelling to date; and helping countries to measure food waste at household, food service and retail levels; to track national progress towards 2030 and to report on SDG target of 12.3.

I support the proposed amendments in this Bill for food waste segregation and reporting, which will complement and support global efforts via UNEP and FAO and through the Food Waste Index Report. Naturally, Singapore, Singaporeans and our Government must do our part to support with clear actions the SDG target of 12.3.

UNEP has reported that the true scale of food waste and its impacts have not been well-understood, until now. I agree. I would argue that we really should educate Singaporeans of all ages and educational levels on the perils of food waste and how we must reduce food waste and channel produced food resources to better uses in mitigation.

While our Government has through its Zero Waste Masterplan and the guides it produced for F&B outlets, supermarkets and food manufacturers to guide and help businesses to reduce food waste – with greater focus on production processes, proper inventory management and effective perishables handling – more must be done to educate domestic households and individuals so that every Singaporean knows about the issue of food wastage and how every Singaporean can consciously minimise food wastage in our daily living habits.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I help out regularly at a food rescue food distribution in Hougang, which focuses primarily on fruits and vegetables. It gives me a frightening glimpse of the potential or actual food wastage at the wholesalers' level on an everyday basis.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, to put things in perspective, according to NEA, the total amount of food waste generated in Singapore was 817,000 tonnes in 2021, an increase of 23% from 2020. However, crucially, less than one in six Singaporeans are aware of the problems of food wastage in Singapore.

I call on the MSE to have a multilingual public education campaign to educate Singaporeans on the issue of food waste in individual households, food service, retail and wholesalers. Singapore and Singaporeans must all do our part to step up our efforts to help reach the SDG target of 12.3, of halving food waste by 2030 within the next seven years.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, curbing food wastage can go hand-in-hand with curbing food insecurity, especially among lower-income Singaporean households. I applaud many different organisations like Food Bank, Willing Hearts, many lesser known or less formally organised groups and Singaporeans who are already doing that, such as the Red Collective and the many food rescue groups operating in different parts of Singapore, bringing excess food to lower-income Singaporeans, reducing food wastage and helping the food-insecured Singaporeans.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I support this Bill and I will repeat my call in my Budget debate speech last year, for mindsets to shift in the way we consume single-use plastic bags and, indeed, all single use plastic products – to only use what we need to use. I also hope that the beverage container return scheme will soon be extended to glass bottles and beverage cartons.

Finally, I call on MSE to have a multilingual public education campaign to ensure more Singaporeans will understand the issue of food waste in individual households, food service, retail and wholesalers, so that Singaporeans will double our efforts towards reduction of food waste at all levels.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature, in 2019, the societal costs of plastics produced globally were US$3.7 trillion, more than India's gross domestic product. Although Singapore has a small global footprint, our globalised economy will influence and shape the wider commercial networks beyond our shores.

Within our shores, we are already facing the environmental impact. For example, the Lorong Halus dumping ground, a 234-hectare landfill, was opened in the 1970s. For many years, it was plagued by illegal dumping, foul smell and pollution of the surrounding natural habitat. By 1999, It was filled up in 30 years and was closed.

We then transited to Pulau Semakau, a 350 hectares facility 50% larger than Lorong Halus and receives more than 2,000 tonnes of incineration waste daily. At this current rate, it will run out of space by 2035, with only 12 years remaining. Therefore, we will need to develop more capacity beyond Pulau Semakau.

According to the Singapore Environment Council, Singapore uses 1.76 billion plastic items annually. Of which, about 820 million are plastic bags from supermarkets and close to half a billion PET bottles and disposable plastic items. These plastic products require massive energy and resources to manufacture, distribute and dispose of.

Some studies mentioned that Singapore only recycles 13% of domestic waste. So, what has impeded the recycling efforts? Most were due to the leakage of food and liquid waste, as well as e-waste and styrofoam, which contributed to most of the contamination, rendering most items unsuitable for recycling.

When I engage businesses, youths and residents, many have expressed passion for the climate emergency and their desire to play a more active role. As individuals, they want to have more alternatives and access to participate in more sustainable activities and lifestyles. As a citizen, they urged for more action, a swifter and deliberate effort to push toward a more sustainable society.

In addition, I hear the youths actively advocating for more action to secure their future and our future generations.

This Bill will enable us to reduce waste generation and recover valuable materials from crucial waste elements. It will allow us to divert waste from Semakau and extend its lifespan. The reduced waste generation will reduce our carbon emissions from incineration, build capabilities and move towards a more circular economy.

I have a few questions for the Senior Minister of State.

On the disposable carrier bag charge, how will this affect supermarkets that operate under a single brand but use several special purpose vehicles and subsidiaries where, individually, the turnover is less than $100 million? Will this be aggregated at the group or subsidiary level?

Can the Senior Minister of State share more on the reporting and recording-keeping requirements and how often should these retailers report the details of the bag charge requirements, and if there are any baseline requirements on how this should be published?

Will there be a future mandatory requirement to channel the collected proceeds to support social and environmental causes?

On the beverage container return scheme, in the scenario where the scheme operators have failed to achieve the required return rate, what will be the consequences and mitigating factors? How will the disposal and collection scheme work when cross-border commercial activities are involved, such as F&B services onboard aircrafts and ships?

On food waste reporting, what are the approval considerations for new building managers to pursue alternative food waste treatment methods located off-site? Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.