Amy Khor Lean Suan
Singapore
“Sir, NEA does conduct inspections of these premises from time to time. For this particular premises, they actually did six inspections since 2021.”
“The Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducts enforcement actions against drivers who are found to have provided illegal car-pooling services. An individual who provides an illegal car-pooling service may face a fine of up to $3,000, up to six months' imprisonment, or both.”
“We will also provide the first 500 private heavy vehicle chargers co-funding of up to 50% of the charger installation cost, capped at $30,000 per charger. These measures will narrow the lifecycle cost gap between an electric and internal combustion engine heavy vehicle and spur adoption of electric heavy vehicles.”
“With regard to the extension of the lower speed limit to school zones for full day, we will work with the relevant agencies on the enhanced enforcements.”
“They will provide a certain amount of protection to the pedestrians because, as I have said, the bollards will absorb the impact of the collision from the vehicles. So, there is a protection. But ultimately, of course, road safety really depends on a multitude of factors, including road user behaviour.”
“The bollards installed at pedestrian crossings by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) are not of the K4, K8 or K12 standards stated by the Member. Bollards of these standards are typically security bollards. They are installed to protect critical infrastructure or at high security areas, such as Changi Airport, to be unyielding.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,285 lines we hold for Amy Khor Lean Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 46.
“We need to find ways to manage packaging waste more sustainably. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Mohamed Irshad asked for our plans on this. This year, we will introduce regulations to mandate the reporting of packaging data and development of 3R plans by producers of packaged products, as well as retailers and supermarkets. This will make companies more aware of their packaging use and encourage them to optimise it, thereby minimising waste and also reducing business costs. Obligated companies will start collecting the data from 1 July this year, for submission to NEA early next year. As this is the first time we are implementing such a reporting requirement, NEA is partnering the Singapore Manufacturing Federation on a joint capability development programme that will support companies in fulfilling their new obligations. Companies will be offered workshops and training courses to familiarise themselves with the reporting framework. Companies can also exchange best practices in sustainable packaging waste management and prepare themselves for the upcoming Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework. Under the EPR framework, producers are responsible for collecting and recycling their product packaging. We are bringing forward the EPR for packaging waste by implementing it in phases. In the first phase, we will build upon the reporting framework and the Reverse Vending Machine trials to implement a Deposit Refund Scheme (DRS) for beverage containers by 2022. In a typical DRS, producers pay for the system to take back used beverage containers. Consumers get a refund when returning empty beverage containers at designated return points.”
“Hence, instead of pursuing a substitution strategy, we should focus on inculcating the right values. Singaporeans' actions could then be motivated by a consciousness to safeguard the environment. This is why, in the spirit of Singapore Together, NEA will convene a Citizens' Workgroup later this year to address the excessive consumption of all disposables, including Styrofoam and single-use bags. We welcome citizens to deliberate the idea of a nation-wide charge for single-use bags as well as other measures, such as campaigns and education. We will take the Workgroup's recommendations seriously and work with participants to implement them where feasible. I invite Singaporeans to register for the Workgroup later this month. Among the supermarkets, FairPrice has taken the lead with their plastic bag charge trial last year, complemented with educational efforts. The trial has shown promising results, with majority of FairPrice's customers receptive towards a plastic bag charge. I commend FairPrice for its leadership and welcome this decision to expand the trial to 25 outlets for one year. I am heartened that Prime has also implemented a plastic bag charge in four of their outlets. I call on other supermarkets and retailers to also pilot this and urge Singaporeans to support these efforts. My Ministry is taking the lead to introduce enabling regulations to transit to a circular economy. Last September, we passed the Resource Sustainability Act to address three priority waste streams – packaging waste, e-waste, and food waste. Packaging waste makes up a third of the total domestic waste disposed of in Singapore. The amount disposed of will only grow as Singaporeans embrace new trends in online shopping and food delivery.”
“One follow-up project is the redesigning of the blue recycling bin to be more user-friendly. Their ideas include a transparent panel on the bin body, eye-level labels with #RecycleRight information and tailored deposit holes. MEWR and NEA will support the Workgroup members to fine-tune and trial their prototype. Ms Joan Pereira may also be pleased to know that NEA has already successfully trialled the use of bigger recycling bins, which are collected by side-loader trucks. These will be progressively deployed across Singapore by end-2022. As Mr Daniel Goh highlighted, grassroots efforts are also important in encouraging households to #RecycleRight. Our Public Waste Collectors work with the grassroots to organise Cash-for-Trash programmes regularly at convenient locations. NEA is also considering a pilot "recycling bin contamination rate" competition involving several Residents' Networks. The private sector has also come on board. F&N Foods partnered NEA in the "Recycle N Save" pilot. Eleven Reverse Vending Machines have been rolled out and we will deploy 39 more by mid-2020. I am encouraged by the positive response with over two million containers collected since the launch last October. We will continue to refine the pilot. Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Louis Ng spoke about reducing disposables through a ban or a charge. We believe that we should take a pragmatic approach and find an inclusive solution that works for Singapore and Singaporeans, taking into account our local context. For example, degradable bags provide little benefits in Singapore as we incinerate all our household waste. On a life cycle basis, single-use paper and degradable bags also consume large amount of resources like water and land.”
“Mr Chairman, as Minister Masagos said earlier, we each have a duty to take climate action and safeguard Singapore for our future generations. This was why we designated 2019 as Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste – to mobilise every Singaporean to do their part towards a Zero Waste nation and a circular economy. To Mr Chen Show Mao's question, it has been a busy and successful year. We engaged more than 670,000 Singaporeans and together with our 3P (People, Public and Private) partners, organised almost 2,000 Zero Waste programmes and activities. We supported ground-up initiatives through the "Towards Zero Waste Grant" and launched the "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign. All these efforts helped to instil in Singaporeans the 3Rs of Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. We also made tangible steps to lay the foundation for Singapore's transition to a circular economy. We charted out Singapore's inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan and set ourselves an ambitious target to reduce the amount of waste sent to Semakau Landfill by 30% by 2030. We can close our resource loops, just as we have done for our Water Story. In fact, we already recycle 99% of our ferrous metal waste and construction and demolition waste. As shared in Budget 2020, we are also making good progress turning incineration ash into construction material we proudly call NEWSand. We will begin trials to test potential NEWSand materials in road construction along Tanah Merah Coast Road later this year. Going forward, NEA will launch a Request for Information by mid-2020 for a commercial-scale facility to produce NEWSand. Achieving our Zero Waste vision is a whole-of-nation effort. Last year, we convened our first ever Citizens' Workgroup to co-create solutions to #RecycleRight.”
“Since December 2016, we have included the idling engine regulations as well as the penalty regime in the Handbook on Highway Code under the Eco-driving section and in the theory test. The idea really is, as the Member has said, to enhance awareness as well as compliance right from the start. I agree with the Member that we need to look at even more ways for effective public outreach and education efforts. We have actually stepped up enforcement blitzes at hotspots and increased the penalties since 2016. And since 2011, we have distributed more than 1.3 million educational pamphlets and flyers through various means – through the private vehicle fleet owners, schools, authorised vehicles inspection centres and so on. We will continue to look at ways for more effective public education and outreach efforts.”
“The Bill will also allow for a more effective administration and enforcement of the Convention. The amendments to the Basel Convention will provide greater clarity on plastic waste standards and better regulate its transboundary movement. In doing so, we hope that new economic opportunities will be created that the local recycling industry will seize, which will create good jobs for Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“At the same time, we recognise that the World Health Organization, European Food Safety Authority and Food Agriculture Organisation have assessed that microplastics either posed a low risk to human health, or that more scientific evidence was required to assess the impact of ingesting plastic in food. The Public Utilities Board (PUB) also treats all used water at our water reclamation plants to internationally recognised discharge standards using the latest technology. This includes the removal of most microplastics. NEA has, therefore, assessed that no further measures are needed at this point to manage the entry of microbeads into our wastewater and into our environment, until further scientific evidence emerges. While we have no plans to ban microbeads in cosmetics, we encourage businesses to reduce the use of microbeads in their products. I am heartened that multinational corporations, such as Johnson & Johnson and Unilever, as well as our own local retailers, like Guardian Singapore and Watsons, have phased out microbeads in their products. We will continue to monitor international developments on microplastics, including microbeads in cosmetics. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. Plastic waste is a waste stream of concern for us, and we are tackling it through regulations under the Resource Sustainability Act, as well as other plans to reduce plastic consumption and promote plastics recycling under the Zero Waste Masterplan. In addition, as a responsible member of the international community, Singapore remains committed to upholding our obligations under the Basel Convention. The HWA (Amendment) Bill will enable Singapore to comply with the new controls on the transboundary movement of certain categories of plastic waste under the Basel Convention.”
“As Mr Gan Thiam Poh highlighted, such regulations will force companies to be more conscious of the amount of packaging used in their products and encourage them to identify ways to optimise packaging. The mandatory reporting framework will also lay the foundation for an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework for packaging waste management. The EPR framework ensures that producers are responsible for the collection and recycling of the materials they use to package their products. This will send economic signals to companies to take into account the cost of environmental externalities of their products. It will also encourage the redesigning of products so that less materials are used or the products can be more easily recycled. However, tackling the consumption of plastics cannot be done by the Government alone. We are working closely with various stakeholders to reduce our consumption of disposables, including plastics. For example, NEA's "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign has partnered 1,600 premises to encourage consumers to reduce the use of disposables. We also want to partner Singaporeans to co-create other solutions to reduce the excessive consumption of plastics. A Citizens' Workgroup for Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds will be formed to work on measures to tackle the issue of excessive consumption of disposables in Singapore. We will announce further details on this later this year. Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Christopher de Souza raised the issue of microplastics and microbeads. We have in place comprehensive measures to address microplastics. For example, SFA routinely takes samples of locally available food, including seafood, for testing to ensure compliance with our food safety standards. These standards are aligned with international standards.”
“The Amendment bans all exports from developed to developing countries, hence its name. We believe that the legitimate movement of useful waste material does not just present economic opportunities for our companies, but allows Singapore to play our part in the safe handling of hazardous material in the region. For example, e-waste recycling companies in Singapore import e-waste from countries, such as Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, and treat them at our licensed facilities in an environmentally-sound manner. This would be curtailed if we ratified the Ban Amendment. In fact, many OECD countries have not ratified the Ban Amendment yet, including countries with strong recycling industries, such as Japan and South Korea. We are also investing in research and development (R&D) to develop local recycling solutions, as Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Louis Ng spoke about. The S$45 million Closing the Waste Loop R&D Initiative supports research into new circular economy solutions. For example, it has funded a research project that is studying how plastic-embedded multi-layer films, such as potato chip packaging, can be recycled. This involves developing a chemical recycling method that can separate and individually recycle the different layers from the multi-layer film. As Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have highlighted, it is key to reduce the generation of plastic waste in the first place. Last year, we introduced the Resource Sustainability Act, a landmark legislation to give effect to a regulatory framework to promote resource sustainability and support the management of our priority waste streams. This year, new regulations on the mandatory reporting of packaging data and the Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (3R) plans for packaging will take effect.”
“Hence, our vision is to close the plastic waste loop locally where feasible and allow our plastic wastes to be recovered and converted into useful resources again. At the same time, investing in new recycling technology and developing the industry will create economic opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans. For example, McKinsey estimates a potential fourfold increase in plastics reuse and recycling by 2030, worth an estimated US$60 billion. We are studying both mechanical and chemical recycling options. Mechanical recycling uses well-established technology to turn waste plastics into plastic pellets. We already have mechanical recycling plants in Singapore which treat our industrial plastic waste. These are operated by companies, such as A~Star Plastics, Plaspulp Union and Ravago. Chemical recycling can potentially complement mechanical recycling. Waste plastics that are not suitable for mechanical recycling, such as used plastic bags, can be recycled into chemical feedstock through chemical recycling. We will share more on our plans to close the plastics loop at the upcoming Committee of Supply debate. Based on our consultations with industry players, the main impediments to greater recycling locally are the lack of economies of scale and low global demand. We will require further consultations with the local industry and economic agencies to determine the appropriate industry size and structure to suit the Singapore market. Our intent to build up local recycling capability is also a key reason why Singapore has not ratified the Ban Amendment, which Ms Anthea Ong asked about. The Amendment was first introduced in 1995 to protect developing countries from the ill-effects of hazardous waste exported by developed countries.”
“In 2018, approximately 949,000 tonnes of plastic waste were generated in Singapore, which was about 12% of the total waste generated. Four percent of the plastic waste generated was recycled. Of this, 7% was recycled locally, while the rest was sorted and exported for recycling. The plastics that are recycled are mainly post-industrial plastics that are clean and homogenous, or recyclables from households that have been sorted and baled at our Material Recovery Facilities. As we can see, packaging waste, including plastics, is generated in large quantities with a low recycling rate. As such, we have made packaging waste a priority waste stream in both the Zero Waste Masterplan and the Resource Sustainability Act. As Mr Louis Ng has highlighted, we hope to further build up our local recycling capabilities to better extract resources from plastic waste. However, I would like to clarify that we are doing this not because we contribute to the global ocean plastics problem but because we want to reduce the amount of plastics that we incinerate. Singapore does not contribute in any significant way to the ocean plastics problem. We do not landfill our plastic waste but incinerate them at our Waste-to-Energy plants. Most of Singapore is a water catchment, meaning that our waterways are dammed up and plastics are removed from the waterways before they reach our reservoirs. We have been building up our waste management resilience, which is in line with the global movement towards proper treatment and management of waste. As a small country, in the face of carbon and resource constraints, we also want to enhance Singapore's resource resilience by reusing resources for as long as possible.”
“Our companies understood the need for the new measures and for Singapore to comply with our international obligations. We do not expect these amendments to disrupt the operations of our plastic recyclers and traders. There will not be additional regulations on the movement of most clean and homogenous plastic recyclables as these are not subjected to PIC under the Basel Convention. Mixed plastic recyclables can also continue to be exported, as long as PIC is obtained from the State of Import. To help companies comply with the requirements, NEA will guide companies through the Basel permit application procedures, particularly in the initial period after the new regulations come into effect. In fact, we hope that the local recycling industry will benefit from economic opportunities as clearer regulations on the flow of recyclables develop. This will facilitate the legitimate flow of recyclables and open up new markets for our local companies. As Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Ms Anthea Ong have pointed out, there are opportunities to promote a regional circular economy, in line with the vision of our Zero Waste Masterplan. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now speak on the local plastic waste management landscape and our plans to develop local recycling capability and capacity, which Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Louis Ng asked about. Plastic waste in Singapore is either recycled or incinerated. Such wastes are not landfilled. All general waste and recyclables must be collected by licensed collectors. Plastic recyclables that are segregated at source is sorted and sent for recycling either locally or overseas. On the other hand, plastic waste which is not source-segregated for recycling is incinerated with other general waste at our Waste-to-Energy plants.”
“Under the HWA Act, companies that falsely declare such wastes, or export such wastes without a valid Basel export permit, can be fined up to $300,000. Individuals who commit such offences can be fined up to $100,000, or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. NEA works closely with Singapore Customs and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to enforce these regulations at our checkpoints. We also enjoy a close working relationship with international counterparts and cooperate with them to investigate any suspected illegal export of waste from Singapore. NEA had, in fact, investigated the case of Virogreen, which Ms Anthea Ong raised. In this instance, the company had correctly declared the contents of the shipment as e-waste for recycling. The PIC procedure had been followed and NEA had received consent from the relevant authority in Thailand for the import. These clarifications were carried in the same Eco-Business article. Similarly, in the case reported by Reuters, which Ms Anthea Ong cited, none of the containers had been exported from or transited through Singapore. No Singapore companies had contravened the Basel Convention in any way and the two Singaporeans had not violated HWA. The case is currently under investigation by the Indonesian authorities. There are currently no plans to introduce extraterritorial offences in HWA. The Basel Convention has nearly universal membership with 187 Parties and all our neighbouring countries are members. Singaporeans or Singapore-registered entities who contravene the Basel Convention can be prosecuted in their country of offence. Mr Louis Ng and Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about the impact of the amendments on our companies. NEA had consulted the industry prior to the introduction of these amendments.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their comments and support of the Bill. I will now address the four broad areas brought up. First, the measures Singapore undertakes to meet our obligations under the Basel Convention. Second, the effects of the amendments on the industry. Third, our plans to develop our local recycling industry, particularly relating to plastics. Fourth, our plans to reduce excessive consumption of plastics and to close the plastic loop. Ms Anthea Ong asked about our progress in implementing the Basel Convention. Since 1996, when we became a Party to the Convention, we have issued an average of 150 Basel permits a year for the transboundary movement of wastes. In 2018, NEA issued 36 import permits, 50 export permits and 70 transit permits. The main destinations for Basel exports were Korea, Japan, France and Thailand, with most of these shipments containing e-waste intended for recycling. Ms Anthea Ong also asked how we ensure hazardous waste exported under the Basel Convention is properly treated. This is covered under the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure, which is well-established under the Basel Convention. When companies apply to NEA for a Basel export permit, they are required to provide information on the treatment facility which the shipment is destined for. This information is forwarded to the relevant authorities in the State of Import. NEA will not issue a Basel export permit to the company until the State of Import evaluates the proposal and consents to accept the shipment. We take our obligations under the Basel Convention seriously and have taken action against companies for violations.”
“Well, first, I would highly recommend that the Member start this social, civic-mindedness and gracious campaign among the residents, as far as smoking in residential homes are concerned. With regard to thermal cameras, we outsource it to a third party to provide this service. So, where there is persistent feedback on smoking issues in common corridors, lift lobbies and stairwells, we can look into the feasibility of providing such thermal cameras. I have no idea whether Nee Soon has any of these. [Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]”
“I am pleased to say that for the first question, at least I have an update. As the Member knows, we cannot constantly monitor all the 32,000-odd smoking-prohibited places or respond immediately to every feedback, especially given the fleeting nature of the act. So, to reinforce the no-smoking regulations, NEA has started deploying thermal cameras in public residential areas, particularly the common corridors, the lift lobbies, the stairwells, where there is persistent feedback on smoking issues. This is to enhance surveillance to curb unlawful smoking. The cameras are able to capture images of the smoking infringement as well as the date and time, and this allows NEA to follow up with investigations. Let me share that so far, more than 20 offenders have been caught through these thermal cameras and have been issued with composition fines. As regard the second question, I am afraid I do not have any updates on this. But let me say that smoking is already prohibited in many, many places. I said 32,000-odd places, and actually, there are very few areas where our smokers can smoke now. And we are mindful about enacting laws that are too intrusive. And, in fact, while many have given us feedback why do you not enact laws to prohibit smoking within their own homes, there are also many who tell us that they do not believe that the Government should intrude into one's private space. So, we continue to encourage our smokers to be civic-minded and in the spirit of building a socially gracious and civic-minded society, I think we should all try to resolve this amicably, as far as possible.”
“With regard to the second question about the therapists, I think this is not quite related to the issue of issuance of medical leave or light duties by the doctors. But nonetheless, we will check and work with MOM where if it is needed, to work out the procedures and the process for this.”
“First, I would like to say that we are as concerned as the Member for the welfare of the workers. Indeed, we have done some preliminary consultations as well as done a survey of the landscape of such issues in various countries, like New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. As I have noted earlier, the general view is that, because the duration and the type of medical leave or even light injury duties that are to be given really varies widely depending on different persons, the different circumstances, whether it is the type and severity of the injury, the type of treatment required, rehabilitation, even the comorbidity and the fitness of the worker as well as the work requirements and work conditions. All these vary very greatly, and it is actually difficult to have a set of prescriptive guidelines for prescribing medical leave and even light duties. So, that is the reason why the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), in 2017, did issue some general guidelines on what doctors should take into account, as I have enumerated earlier, as well as the fact that they should not take into account extraneous factors like who is going to benefit, who is going to pay, impact on insurance claims and so on, as well as to consult their peers where they may not be sure. We think that with the new WICA coming into effect from September of this year, where even light duties given – even if it is one day – will have to be reported, that will actually minimise this issue of under prescribing medical leave or light duties. In fact, one of the benefits of WICA is to enhance protection for the employees. We will continue to consult with various relevant stakeholders as well as to monitor the situation.”
“The Singapore Medical Council's Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG) requires the doctor to place the patient's welfare above all. Regarding medical leave, the doctor has to ensure that the duration and type of leave granted are based on medical grounds arrived at through proper clinical assessment by doctors. The duration of medical leave is determined by a variety of factors, including the type and severity of the injury, the period required for the treatment, rehabilitation and recovery, and the specific work requirements and workplace conditions. Recent changes in the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) to require employers to report any instance of employees on medical leave or light duties due to a work injury, when effected, should reduce the risk of inadequate medical leave. Therefore, for now, we do not think that guidelines for medical leave on work-related injuries are necessary. My Ministry will continue to monitor the situation.”
“We have said that, whether it is GIC or Temasek Holdings, they make their decisions on a commercial basis. But they have said that sustainability is one of the factors that they take into account in their decisions. As I have said earlier, the Government does not interfere or influence the decisions that they make on a commercial basis and this is an important principle of governance that we adhere to.”
“I thank the Member for his question. When we talk about financing of power projects, we must understand it in the context of the growing energy needs in the region, even as we move towards a low-carbon source of power generation. Investments into power projects, as with all other investments, are commercial decisions that the businesses and financial institutions will have to consider, taking into account, as I had said, maximising the long-term risk adjusted returns as well as other goals that they have. The Government does not interfere or influence their individual investment decisions. It is an important governance principle that we adhere to. But as I have said, the industry is becoming increasingly exposed to the risks and opportunities of the low carbon future. So, financial institutions are also increasingly incorporating the ESG goals in their positions, and I think that will lead to a shift of investment towards more sustainable activities. What we can do is for my Ministry to continue to support the financial sector in making this transition, working together with MAS, to promote more green financing in Singapore. As regards the specific question about investments, like into a first loss fund or renewable project, it is something the Member could discuss and bring up at various forums for the investors and the financial institutions to consider the feasibility, not just in Singapore but across the region.”
“When we talk about Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS), it is really about capturing the carbon which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere, converting it into something useful or storing it safely. So, indeed, the National Climate Change Secretariat has commissioned a study on CCUS technologies, including carbonisation that Mr Leon Perera asked about, to determine the challenges as well as the opportunities of such technology and also to recommend the next steps. One of the issues, for instance, that we would have to consider is not just economic viability and feasibility, but also whether they meet certain technical requirements, such as environmental standards that have to be met, especially when two-thirds of Singapore is a water catchment area. These are some areas that we will study. We will continue to monitor developments in these technologies. We are working with the industry as well as with the research and development sector to look further into the technology.”
“We are studying the infrastructure as well as various measures to encourage the adoption of cleaner energy vehicles, including electric vehicles. This is something that we can look into.”
“But in studying this, we will have to take into account factors, such as the overall efficiency of waste treatment at the national level, carbon footprint savings from reduced refuse truck traffic using smaller scale gasification plants, for instance, safety to residents as well as nuisance buffer required for such facilities, especially if we are talking about siting these within HDB estates, and also, any off-take or by-products at the local level. Just to share that under NEA's regulatory sandbox, the SP Group is conducting a gasification pilot at Gardens by the Bay (GBB). There, the waste collected from GBB is converted to heat as well as a solid by-product that has got carbon in it. We will monitor the outcome of this pilot and assess the feasibility of using such technology for smaller-scale waste treatment facilities.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Firstly, with regard to the use of district cooling, indeed, we support the use of district cooling to reduce energy consumption for buildings at the systems level. In fact, there are already district cooling projects at One Raffles Quay as well as the Marina Bay area. We have found that for the Marina Bay area scheme, there was about a 40% reduction in energy consumption. We have plans to introduce district cooling in the new Jurong Lake District. These are all greenfield sites and it is easier to implement such a technology there. For brownfield sites, there will be challenges because there are already existing buildings there that have put in place their systems. But we are studying this further. With regard to electric vehicles, indeed, we encourage the adoption of cleaner energy vehicles, whether it is electric or hybrid, through the Vehicles Emissions Scheme, where we incentivise the purchase of cleaner energy vehicles. As regards the Member's request for public charging at parking spaces, we will bring his suggestion to the Ministry of Transport and the Land Transport Authority to consider. Regarding gasification technology, as the Member knows, all household waste is currently incinerated at our four waste-to-energy incineration plants, it is mass incineration technology either at Woodlands or Tuas. We are studying the feasibility of small-scale waste treatment, including utilising gasification technology.”
“We can all choose to make climate-friendly choices and adopt a more sustainable lifestyle, such as setting the air-conditioner temperature at 25°C, practising the 3Rs of Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, and taking public transport.”
“We have already capped the vehicle population in Singapore at zero growth, except for commercial vehicles. We also encourage the adoption of cleaner vehicles, including electric vehicles, and are working with the industry to develop infrastructure for our public, shared and private transport vehicles. We are diverting waste away from incineration by focusing on efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle. Under the Zero Waste Masterplan launched in August, we outlined how Singapore is adopting a circular economy approach to waste management, where resources are kept in use for as long as possible. The Resource Sustainability Act that was recently enacted gives legislative effect to the regulatory framework that we will put in place to better manage the three priority waste streams of electrical and electronic waste, or e-waste, packaging waste, including plastics, and food waste. These measures will contribute not only to reducing carbon emissions and closing the resource loop for these key waste streams but will also extend the lifespan of our only landfill at Semakau. We are closely monitoring global developments in carbon capture and sequestration. There are no plans to incorporate these technologies into our current waste management infrastructure at this moment. However, we will continue to study the feasibility of such technology, taking into consideration factors, such as the maturity of the technology, and the costs and benefits of applying it to the Singapore context. Tackling climate change requires a whole-of-nation approach. Individuals also play a key role in our climate mitigation efforts.”
“Thank you. Singapore generated 52.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2017. The buildings and household sectors contributed around 19% of our total GHG emissions, of which a sizeable portion would have been for air-conditioning. The land transport sector contributed around 14%, and the incineration of municipal solid waste at waste-to-energy plants contributed around 3% of our total GHG emissions. Singapore is fully committed to reducing our emissions under our Paris Agreement pledge. We have put in place a comprehensive suite of measures to reduce our emissions across all sectors. These measures are complemented by the economy-wide carbon tax which came into effect this year. Under the Building Control Regulations, all new buildings and buildings undergoing major retrofitting are required to achieve a minimum sustainability standard. The Building and Construction Authority's Green Mark Scheme also encourages building owners and developers to achieve higher energy efficiency, such as by reducing a building's cooling demand and adopting more efficient cooling systems. The National Environment Agency (NEA) has also put in place the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme to encourage consumers to purchase more energy-efficient household air-conditioners and introduced the Minimum Energy Performance Standards to phase out the less efficient appliances from the market. In the transport sector, we aim to make public transport the preferred mode of travel in Singapore and to encourage active mobility, such as walking and cycling. By 2040, we target for nine in 10 peak period journeys to be taken using public, active and shared modes of transport, and for these journeys to be completed within 45 minutes.”
“The Monetary Authority of Singapore continues to work with the financial institutions and, of course, with Singapore Exchange on sustainability reporting requirements and we will continue to also provide our support and work together with them on this. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“I think I have just given the Member the information, particularly on the survey that shows that we do have differing views on this issue of single-use plastics, whether to charge for plastic bags or not. I have also given the Member in detail the various reasons why our context is unique. So, it is not an excuse that we do not want to charge for plastic bags but because people are reusing them. These are views from the ground. As I have said, we are equally concerned. So, we want to form this Workgroup, bringing people from diverse backgrounds, diverse views together. Let us work together and come to an inclusive solution on the way forward.”
“The insights gained could also help inform recommendations made by the proposed Workgroup. We will consider all options and I welcome Members to share your views and ideas, too. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. The Resource Sustainability Bill is a major milestone in Singapore's sustainability journey and a pivotal framework for climate and environmental protection. It will allow us to use our resources and grow our economy sustainably. It will also catalyse innovative circular business models and position our companies to seize opportunities in the region and beyond for waste treatment, recycling or remanufacturing. While change can be catalysed strategically at the level of businesses, community and civic organisations, our individual efforts are important, too. We can all make small changes in our daily lives and contribute to protecting our environment. So, let us all be part of the solution to secure our collective future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. 6.27 pm”
“We remove any litter that enters our waterways with litter traps and flotsam removal craft and conduct beach and underwater clean-ups. All these measures prevent any litter, including plastics, from ending up in the sea and contributing to marine pollution. We all share the goal of tackling climate change and protecting our environment. Nevertheless, Singaporeans have expressed differing views on how to deal with single-use plastics. A recent feedback unit Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) survey on public sentiment towards disposable plastic bags showed that 9% preferred a ban, 21% a charge and 69% preferred greater public education to reduce usage. For now, the majority of Singaporeans seem to prefer an educational approach to encourage people to consume less. The Government will continue to engage the community and businesses and listen to their views and feedback. We should take a pragmatic approach and find an inclusive solution that works for Singapore and Singaporeans. This is why we have decided to set up a Citizens' Workgroup for Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds to come together to discuss and identify the way forward for us to collectively tackle the issue of excessive consumption of single-use plastics in Singapore. I note that NTUC FairPrice will run a one-month pilot to charge for plastic bags at seven of its outlets as well as undertake a consumer sentiment survey to gain insights on consumer behaviour. The announcement has elicited strong reactions on social media. We urge Members of this House and the public to support NTUC FairPrice and the trial. I encourage other major supermarket chains, like Dairy Farm, Sheng Siong and Prime to do their part, too.”
“MEWR will also convene a Citizens' Workgroup, comprising Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds, to co-create solutions that will improve the way we recycle at home. The #RecycleRight Workgroup will kick off its first session on 21 September and we are looking forward to the ideas from the Workgroup. We are also keen to co-create solutions to tackle the excessive consumption of single-use plastics. I believe this is an issue that has seized the hearts and minds of many Singaporeans, including, of course, Members of this House. My Ministry and NEA are equally concerned. We have been monitoring how other countries manage their single-use plastics. Many have adopted regulatory measures to curb the generation of plastic waste. Plastic bag charges in jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, Ireland, the UK and the Netherlands, have, indeed, shown a reduction in consumption of plastic bags. Singapore's approach to addressing excessive consumption of single-use plastics, such as plastic bags, needs to take into account our unique urbanised, high-rise living context. Most of the plastic bags that Singaporeans bring home from the shops and supermarkets are not "single-use". We reuse them for other purposes, such as carrying wet items, before eventually using them to bag waste for disposal. This has become a way of life for Singaporeans and ensured that our waste disposal is clean and hygienic. All our waste, including plastics, are safely incinerated. So, they do not cause the landfill problem that many other countries which are reliant on landfills suffer from. For instance, a single-use plastic bag that is used for, maybe 30 minutes, as some say, but will be left in the landfill for more than 30 years.”
“This has allowed Fuji Xerox to save around 30% of new materials used in manufacturing their products. Nestlé Singapore has saved 2,000 tonnes of packaging used for its MILO® products by changing the packaging design and optimising production practices. Not only is this good for the environment, it has also helped Nestlé Singapore to reduce business costs. We are also seeing more packaging-free grocery stores, such as UnPackt. These stores encourage customers to bring their own containers and allow them to buy what they need instead of a prepackaged amount. They also offer more competitive prices, as going without packaging has reduced the cost of products by some 10%. FairPrice has also started adopting similar practices. FairPrice Vivocity, the largest FairPrice store in Singapore, now offers packaging-free grains, nuts, spices and pasta for shoppers to buy loose quantities of these products. This is probably the "nude" zone that Mr Louis Ng is recommending supermarkets to have. We are encouraged by these efforts and welcome more businesses to embrace such practices and go "nude". Another key stakeholder is our community. We are harnessing the strength of our youths and community partners to co-create solutions. Since March this year, MEWR, together with the National Youth Council, has been engaging our youth leaders on our environmental policies and programmes. Through their lens, we hope to better understand youth perspectives on climate change, environment and sustainability issues and empower them to lead ground-up initiatives. For example, the Climate SG Alliance, formed by 18 corporates, educational and civil society leaders, has been promoting education in schools on waste minimisation and educating the community on recycling right.”
“The guidebooks share best practices and highlight technologies, such as smart bins that can measure, identify and track food waste through sensors and image recognition technology. One such system was developed by a Singapore startup, Good for Food, which Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira mentioned. As Ms Anthea Ong and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh said earlier, they both advocated having a Good Samaritan law, which could encourage the donation of excess food to charities. This is a useful idea. I have asked SFA and NEA to conduct industry and public consultations to study this further. We should also learn from countries, such as the US, Canada and Italy, which have implemented such laws. Our approach will have to strike a balance between managing food waste and ensuring that any food donated is safe for consumption, particularly in our tropical climate. The Resource Sustainability Bill is a big stride that the Government has taken to catalyse the transition to a circular economy and enhance our climate, resource and economic resiliences. Tackling climate change in a resource-constrained future is such a massive challenge that our fight needs bigger weapons. The shift from a voluntary to mandatory approach in ensuring resource sustainability is not something that the Government takes lightly, but only after careful consideration and consultation. The Government cannot do this alone. We need businesses, organisations and individuals to come on board with innovative and effective solutions. We are, therefore, heartened that many businesses here have taken the lead to implement circular solutions in their value chain. Fuji Xerox, for example, has adopted a closed-loop system where parts and materials are recovered and reused.”
“We will continue to adopt relevant learning points from successful food waste segregation policies in overseas jurisdictions, such as EU member states, Japan and Taiwan, that focus on requiring businesses to segregate food waste for separate collection. Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Christopher de Souza asked if we intend to extend mandatory food waste segregation and treatment to residential areas. We have no plans to do so and we will focus our regulatory measures on facilities that are large generators of food waste. This is consistent with the practices in most other jurisdictions, such as the EU and Japan, where food waste segregation and treatment measures are targeted primarily at commercial and industrial premises. Nonetheless, we will continue to work with the community to identify suitable opportunities to reduce and recycle food waste. As mentioned by Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Miss Cheng Li Hui, NEA has been actively promoting the reduction of food waste generation at source through campaigns and engagements in the communities. Everyone should do our part. As NEA's campaign tagline says: "Let's buy, order or cook just enough!" Mr Douglas Foo highlighted NEA's series of food waste minimisation guidebooks for food retail establishments, supermarkets and food manufacturing establishments. Similarly, we have also developed a "Guide to Implementing Environmentally-friendly Best Practices for Events" for the public sector to reduce food waste, as suggested by Mr Dennis Tan. This guide has been shared with public agencies. We will continue to work with them to encourage adoption of the best practices when organising events.”
“The information gathered from these audits will help determine the thresholds for large food waste generators. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the benefits of onsite segregation and treatment of food waste. While there are costs associated with the installation of onsite food waste treatment systems, businesses are able to reap cost savings from reduced waste disposal costs. Typically, the payback period of a one-tonne per day onsite food waste treatment system is five years. In addition, there are other benefits, such as a cleaner environment, increased value of dry recyclables due to less contamination by food waste, and potential resources generated through the treatment process. Grand Hyatt, for example, saves around $100,000 a year by treating its food waste into organic fertilisers for the hotel's landscaping purposes. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked about the options to treat food waste. Food waste can be converted into biogas and compost. Both are useful products and the choice would depend on factors, such as the availability of off-takers and economies of scale. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Liang Eng Hwa have asked if the mandatory segregation and treatment of food waste will be onerous for building managers to implement. We have worked closely with relevant stakeholders in developing the food waste measures and will continue to support them in their implementation. To help the industry better understand and comply with the requirements, NEA has published on its website a list of possible onsite food waste treatment systems that companies can consider using. Building managers of existing premises also have the flexibility to choose the treatment solution that best suits their operations, including offsite treatment at the upcoming Tuas Nexus.”
“NEA is also working with the industry to develop a capability-building programme for companies that will include the sharing of best practices and recognition for companies’ zero waste efforts, which were also suggested by Mr Henry Kwek and Prof Lim Sun Sun. We are also building up our local plastics recycling capability to better extract resources from plastic waste. Our vision is to close the plastic waste loop locally where feasible, especially given the tightening restrictions on the transboundary movement of recyclables which various Members have highlighted. NEA is currently studying recycling solutions and technologies, and assessing their suitability for adoption in Singapore. For example, this includes mechanical recycling to turn plastic waste into plastic pellets for manufacturing new products, or chemical recycling to turn plastic waste into chemical feedstock or fuel. This will go hand-in-hand with the EPR framework for packaging waste that we will establish no later than 2025. The recycling facilities will allow Singapore to turn our plastic waste into higher value products locally, while the EPR will consolidate and ensure sufficient feedstock for the plants to operate in an economically viable manner. I will now address the points raised by Members on the mandatory segregation and treatment of food waste. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the type of buildings that will be covered under this framework. For a start, the requirement to segregate and treat food waste will apply to hotels, malls and industrial developments that are large generators of food waste. NEA is currently conducting food waste audits at commercial and industrial premises with food establishments.”
“As I have explained in my opening speech, the threshold has been set at more than $10 million in annual turnover for a start, to minimise the impact on micro and small enterprises. The reporting requirements will cover about 4,500 medium and large enterprises in Singapore which put packaging on the market. As we gain experience, we will review and adjust the exemption thresholds to ensure that these are meaningful and effective when we implement the EPR framework for packaging, including plastics, which will be put in place no later than 2025. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Ong Teng Koon asked if we should introduce reduction targets for packaging waste, including penalties for non-compliance. Our approach is to allow companies the flexibility to set their own targets for their 3R plans. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach, as the use of packaging is dynamic and varies across sectors and companies, which Mr Henry Kwek has also highlighted. Companies may have different approaches in implementing 3R initiatives which can help them save on costs. They also need time to build up their capability. This is also why we will not penalise companies for failure to fulfil their plans, but instead recognise those who do well and share best practices to level up all companies. NEA will support companies in developing their 3R plans to reduce, reuse and recycle packaging. NEA is working with companies which have successfully implemented 3R initiatives under the Singapore Packaging Agreement to come up with best practices, potential initiatives and key performance indicators (KPIs) to aid companies in developing their 3R plans.”
“Take TES Singapore, a local e-waste recycler which has expanded to more than 30 locations worldwide, as an example. TES Singapore is currently building a new facility to treat lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles, which is a covered product subjected to EPR under the Bill. As the treatment process involves chemical extraction, new jobs for engineers with specialised skills in this field will be created. Mr Deputy Speaker, the EPR framework for e-waste will, indeed, bring many benefits to Singapore. More importantly, it will drive resource sustainability by incentivising producers to redesign their products to last longer and for easier recycling. This helps shift mindsets towards the circular economy approach and sustainable consumption, which Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Christopher de Souza have both emphasised the importance of. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now cover the mandatory reporting framework for packaging, including plastics. Under this framework, companies that import packaged products or use packaging in the course of their business, will be required to submit their packaging data and their plans to reduce, reuse or recycle to NEA. This covers all packaging introduced along the supply chain, from manufacturing to repackaging, to door-to-door delivery and the point of sale. Packaging introduced by Singapore-registered companies through online platforms to the consumer market will also be captured. For a start, these requirements will apply to brand owners, manufacturers, importers of packaged goods, as well as supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $10 million. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan asked how this threshold was determined.”
“Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked about the management of unwanted personal mobility devices (PMDs) in view of the policy to disallow the use of non-UL2272 certified PMDs on public paths from July 2020. NEA is supporting the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to develop solutions to allow the public to dispose of unwanted PMDs safely and conveniently, and to ensure the collected PMDs are properly recycled. NEA is assisting LTA with the setting up of designated PMD collection points. When the Bill comes into effect, we will require all producers of PMDs to join PRS. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also rightly highlighted the importance of growing our local e-waste recycling capabilities. Currently, there is sufficient recycling capacity for information and communications technology equipment and televisions. Singapore faces limitations in recycling large appliances, such as refrigerators and washing machines. The EPR framework will play a pivotal role in developing the recycling industry, by financing and driving the demand for recycling services, and by aggregating e-waste into more viable volumes. This will encourage entrepreneurs to enter the market and set up recycling plants and facilities in Singapore. In fact, we are already seeing interest. Several recyclers, both local and overseas, have indicated interest to expand or set up facilities to recycle large household appliances, batteries and lamps. NEA has been working with the relevant agencies to support these interested companies. The development of our local recycling industry will not just allow Singapore to meet our recycling needs. As Mr Desmond Choo has pointed out, it has the potential to create economic opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans.”
“As the EPR system is new, we will start off with lower targets and scale them up as the system matures. Over time, we will aspire towards the 65% e-waste collection targets set by the EU for all product categories. As a transitional measure, penalties for missing collection targets will not be imposed on the PRS operator in the first three years. This is because the PRS operator will need time to build up their infrastructure and collection network to optimise collection, as well as raise awareness of the producers and consumers. Even in the EU, which Mr Louis Ng has cited, member states were given a few years to meet their targets. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the role that the informal sector will play to support the regulatory framework. As individuals are not regulated under the Resource Sustainability Bill, the rag-and-bone or karang guni men will be allowed to continue in their trade and collect unwanted EEE products. In fact, NEA is seeking to integrate the informal sector into the e-waste collection network that will be established by the PRS operator. This is important given that waste, particularly e-waste, contains hazardous substances and needs to be disposed of in a proper manner. The tender documents for the PRS operator will specify that applicants must demonstrate an understanding of how the informal sector currently operates, and develop a plan to integrate them into the collection networks. For example, the PRS operator could conduct training for the karang guni men or engage them as logistics providers in the collection network. The appointed PRS operator must follow through with their plans as part of their licencing conditions.”
“The regulations will cover all Singapore-registered producers, regardless of the channels through which they conduct their business. For example, laptops which Apple sells in Singapore through its online store will count towards its put-to-market tonnage. Similarly, retailers are obligated to offer a free one-for-one takeback when they deliver a product of the same type, even if the product is sold online. However, it is difficult to impose our regulations on overseas suppliers of EEE. This is a challenge faced around the world, including established EPR systems in the EU. We will closely monitor developments in this area and consult the local industry further on ways to bring overseas suppliers on board. Nonetheless, Members may be reassured that all consumers will have access to proper e-waste collection and recycling channels, regardless of where they buy their electronic products from. This includes the network of collection points set up by the PRS operator, and contacting the PRS operator directly for takeback. We welcome companies not covered by the regulatory framework to partner with the appointed PRS operator to conduct e-waste collection programmes. Mr Louis Ng asked how the e-waste collection targets are set. The collection targets set by NEA are based on percentage of consumer products put-to-market by weight. In the first three years, the collection targets will be 60% of Large Household Appliances and 20% of the other consumer products put-to-market by weight. These targets were determined based on consumer e-waste disposal patterns in Singapore and referenced targets set by the EU in the early stages of their EPR implementation. NEA will monitor the amount of e-waste collected and adjust the collection targets accordingly.”
“A study on the EU's EPR on Waste EEE showed that the average increase in the prices of products was about 2% after the regulation was introduced, a small fraction of the cost of the product. Producers are unlikely to raise the retail prices of their products significantly, as this will affect their price competitiveness. Moreover, as we aggregate such waste streams and extract value from them, there is potential to bring down costs at the systems level. I will now address specific points of clarification raised by Members on the three waste streams. Firstly, e-waste. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the current e-waste collection and recycling landscape in Singapore. Based on NEA's 2016 study on e-waste disposal patterns, only 6% of our consumer e-waste is recycled. Thirty-five percent, comprising bulky e-waste, such as washing machines, is carted away by the deliverymen when new appliances are delivered. Twenty-four percent is traded in or resold; another 9% is donated; and the remaining 26% is simply thrown away. This is why we are putting in place a formal EPR framework to ensure that e-waste is properly collected and recycled. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo asked about the thresholds and coverage of producers. As I have explained earlier, we have sought to minimise regulatory impact on our SMEs. The threshold levels have thus been set to cover about 90% of regulated products that are put-to-market by weight. The remaining 10% of regulated products are sold by small producers with small individual market shares. We will monitor the implementation of the EPR framework and ensure that these thresholds remain relevant. Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Christopher de Souza, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Henry Kwek asked how the regulatory measures will affect e-commerce in Singapore.”
“We are also working with industry associations to educate and assist companies with the mandatory reporting requirements for packaging waste and the implementation of their 3R plans. NEA also supports companies through grants. For example, NEA has co-funded 24 onsite food waste treatment systems at premises, such as Parkway Parade, Resorts World Sentosa and InterContinental Singapore Robertson Quay, under its 3R Fund. Fifth, our regulatory framework must support the development of the Environmental Services Industry to take advantage of the circular economy. Besides ensuring environmental and resource sustainability, this will allow us to maximise economic benefits by developing the local recycling industry and allowing our companies to export their solutions overseas. At the same time, greater economies of scale and the development of new solutions will help to bring down costs at the systems level. According to a 2015 study by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey, adopting a circular economy approach could boost Europe's resource productivity by 3% by 2030 and generate cost savings of €600 billion a year. Another 2015 study by the UK's Waste and Resources Action Programme found that a circular economy has the potential to create 1.2 to three million jobs in the continent by 2030. We believe that the Resource Sustainability Bill will open up new economic opportunities for Singapore companies and Singaporeans. With these measures, we expect that companies will be able to cope with the new regulations. Similarly, as Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Anthea Ong have asked, we do not expect the cost that may be passed down to customers to be significant.”
“In response to industry feedback, we have built in greater flexibility in the implementation of these regulations. For example, producers of non-consumer Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) can collect unwanted products from their customers within a reasonable amount of time after receiving their requests, instead of doing so immediately. The same flexibility is also given to retailers in providing the free one-for-one collection service when they deliver products to the customers. Second, we have sought to minimise regulatory impact on smaller businesses. Government regulations often impact these businesses more, as they are less able to benefit from economies of scale. This is why, as asked by Mr Louis Ng, we have set thresholds to exclude smaller producers from joining a PRS or reporting on their packaging use. Third, we have sought to keep our regulatory framework consistent with other jurisdictions. For example, our e-waste EPR framework has incorporated best practices adapted from the systems in Sweden and South Korea and is customised to suit Singapore's context. Our economy is an open one. We import most of what we consume. Many of the companies which will be covered by this Bill also have global presence, including in countries where EPR is implemented. This will allow them to adjust more easily to our EPR system and minimise business costs. Fourth, we will provide sufficient time and support for companies to adjust. As Mr Desmond Choo has suggested, we will stagger the timeline for the regulatory requirements to come into effect. For example, producers of EEE who have exceeded the threshold will have up to six months to join PRS, after they have registered and reported their put-to-market data to NEA.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their thoughtful comments, useful suggestions and, at times, impassioned pleas and, above all, their unanimous support of the Bill. I need to apologise that after the Member talked about the 10-course dinner, Members would have to wait for a little while more. The questions posed by Members in many ways mirror the deliberations and considerations in our design of the regulatory framework. On the one hand, doing more and moving faster will allow us to better care for the environment as the threat of climate change is ever-growing. Members like Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong have given various ideas that we can consider moving forward. On the other hand, we need to be mindful of costs to businesses and consumers. As highlighted by Members Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Desmond Choo, Mr Douglas Foo, Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Henry Kwek and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, operating and compliance costs are key concerns for businesses, more so as we enter a period of slowing economic growth. Hence, we have adopted a pragmatic approach to achieve our environmental goals, while managing the impact on businesses and consumers. Let me outline this approach. First, in developing the regulatory framework, we have worked closely with our economic agencies to consult over 250 companies and relevant stakeholders. Many gave us useful inputs which we have incorporated. For example, to minimise the reporting burden, NEA will centralise all reporting and submission of documents on one common online platform. NEA will also develop online reporting templates and audit procedures that will streamline processes and reduce the manpower needed.”
“First, with regard to the photos, that was what I was given to understand. But as I have also said, we have actually deployed cameras for that particular block multiple times. Which means that, at the end of the day, we do have some idea of where the stack is and it could be additional information that the Member has given. But having said that, if you deploy a camera for a certain period of time and you cannot catch the culprits, then obviously, you have to review whether it is the camera's positioning or whether it is the right stack or the right floor levels and so on, before you redeploy again. And that is a process that we go through for all kinds of high-rise littering offences. With regard to DNA, we have answered this in Parliament before. First of all, when the litter comes down onto the ground, it is unlikely it is the DNA of the culprit alone that will be there. So, it will be very difficult. At least, as far as we know, the technology involved – I am not referring specifically to sanitary pads – but we are talking about in general. There will be many other DNA involved. So, that is where we are.”
“As I have said earlier, there is a need to prioritise, depending on the public health risks and so on. I think the Police also do the same thing.”
“First, let me correct the Member. It is not that we did not catch anyone. As I have said, the effectiveness has improved. But the idea is to try and change behaviours. So, it is a longer-term solution, and we want to encourage considerate socially responsible behaviour and civic mindedness. That should be the priority and not to catch as many people as possible. If the person can be rehabilitated, why not? If he sees the camera and he stops littering, that is a good enough deterrent effect. Having said that, I agree. We do continue to look out for better technologies which are suitable for investigating our high-rise littering incidences, including, of course, cameras, whether it is smaller cameras, more effective cameras in terms of image resolution, detection capabilities, better video analytics programme, we are doing that. And if we can find something, definitely, we will look at trying it out.”