Grace Fu Hai Yien
Singapore
“The Government takes a multi-pronged approach to address the disamenities from second-hand tobacco smoke. The National Environment Agency (NEA) works with Government agencies, Town Councils and community leaders to promote considerate behaviour and strengthen social norms.”
“The Government recently announced land-use changes in Lim Chu Kang to optimise our scarce land to meet our growing and evolving needs. We are at the initial planning stage and agencies are still working out the detailed development proposals.”
“Public Waste Collectors and Town Councils have trialled the collection and treatment of segregated food waste from households. However, participation rates are poor despite regular engagement and reminders.”
“The quality of incense offerings and the practice of burning incense are not regulated by law. Instead, the National Environment Agency (NEA) works with stakeholders, such as Town Councils, agencies and religious organisations, to encourage responsible burning of joss paper and incense.”
“The National Environment Agency (NEA) monitors public cleaning contractors through regular physical audits and remote monitoring, complemented by video analytics. NEA also regularly assesses the cleaning quality and outcomes of public cleaning contractors.”
“This question has been addressed in the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment’s combined answer to Question Nos 15 to 18 on the Order Paper for 7 July 2026. [Please refer to "National Recycling Rates, Plans and Targets", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
The complete record
Every one of 2,293 lines we hold for Grace Fu Hai Yien, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 46.
“Are you going to say what is your target rate for 2024? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: As I said, it is not complicated. You set the target —”
“So, you are suggesting a very variable carbon tax rate, ends with $58 to $133, but without knowing how it is going to get there. Not even knowing what 2024 is going to be. Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I think you would set a target, but be able to adapt to economic conditions. The same way the interest rates are —”
“So, are you then saying that we can go out to the world, and say, "Sorry, I have made the 2030 NDC on the basis of certain economic conditions. And now that the economic conditions are bad, there is a war out there, there is high inflation in energy costs, my NDCs do not count because I need to glide further out"? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: No, but I think I was clear that the adjustments upwards and downwards are the same way that business cycles go upward and downward. So, you would have it lower in a given year, because of economic conditions. But when things pick up, you would raise it back so that you met the original targets.”
“Alright, okay. Can you please try to tell me, if you are the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, how would you glide to this number? How would you glide? We are at the end of 2022. You are going to go out and say, "Company, this is the new glide path." How would you describe your glide path? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: That was the content of my speech. I suggested that we could do it incrementally, the way that the Ministry has suggested. But I also suggested that we could allow the specific level to adjust upward and downward, according to economic conditions.”
“Our range is $50 to $80; your range is $58 to $133. Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Yes, the lower bound that I gave you is lower than the Government's upper bound.”
“Okay. So, your range is higher than the Government, is it correct? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: The lower bound is lower than the Government's upper bound.”
“Oh, we have – $50 to $80 is our range. So, what is your range? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: It was well stated: $58 to $133, with the mid-point being $100.”
“Mr Speaker, Assoc Prof Lim started his speech earlier saying that we have the theory right, but we need to get the implementation right. So, I would like to maybe ask him for his suggestion of how the Government should be positioning the carbon tax in his way. What will be the target – it is $100, so, if it is long run, which year? Is it 2030 still? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just to be clear, the Government has not also committed to a $50 a tonne —”
“I would like to add on to Minister of State Low Yen Ling's reply. We are an accountable Government and we are prepared to be accountable to the people. We are accountable with our results. So, you are going to look at our commitments in 2030, our year-to-year carbon emissions and hold us accountable. I think the line of questioning that the Member has taken, seems to suggest that we have something to hide and we need to hide some incentives somewhere else. There is really no need. What we want is to make sure that our public officers have the ability to engage companies confidently, keeping in mind their obligation to maintain commercial confidentiality for the simple reasons that the companies may be competitors themselves. Secondly, we may have competitors outside Singapore. So, like many of these discussions, like many of these plans, we want to respect each other's requirements, so we have taken the stand that we will keep individual disclosure confidential. Ultimately, you look at our Budget, every year – have we overspent? Do we have items that are not accounted for? Do we have schemes that cannot be explained to people? I think our track record speaks for itself. We will stand in this House again, year after year, to justify to you how we have been doing on our Green Plan and our carbon emissions.”
“So, I would say that you really are along with me on this journey. But we have to take into consideration the next point, which is really the economy. So, we note your suggestions. We have announced the carbon tax and we have repeatedly been telling companies that these are the levels that are going to come. In the last 12 months. We will stick with these, but we will take your suggestions into consideration. And as we make the transition to a low-carbon economy, we must keep an eye on our economic competitiveness, so that Singapore remains an attractive investment and business destination and generates green growth opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans. We must strive to deliver an inclusive transition for our society, spur action across the whole of society and catalyse partnerships across the people, public and private sectors. The proposed changes, as set out in this Bill, have been carefully considered in close consultation with the industry and the public. Taken together, they will enable the next lap of our green transition and lay the building blocks for Singapore as an economically competitive global sustainability hub. With an effective carbon price as the cornerstone of our climate mitigation efforts, the Government will continue to push the envelope on all fronts, to secure a climate resilient and sustainable future for Singapore. I call on all Members of the House to give your support to this Bill. [Applause.]”
“We are also reviewing ongoing schemes, such as the Climate Friendly Households Programme, to encourage more households to mitigate the long-term cost impact by making the switch to energy-efficient appliances and water-saving fittings. So, if Members have residents who fit the criteria who want to reduce their utilities bills by switching to more energy-efficient appliances, please step forward, please ask them to apply to NEA. Mr Speaker, the Carbon Pricing Bill was first introduced in this House in 2018 as a key step in readying our economy and strengthening our competitiveness as the world transitions to a low-carbon future. Since then, we have accelerated our sustainability journey and stepped up our climate ambition. As Ms Poh Li San noted, achieving net zero by 2050 will be a daunting, but necessary undertaking. With our enhanced climate targets, our carbon pricing regime must evolve in tandem. As Members have noted in today's debate, our carbon tax regime must strike a fine balance between three imperatives: the environment, our economy and our society. To reach our ambition of net-zero emissions by 2050, we must drive decarbonisation while ensuring that ICCs are sourced from projects of high environmental integrity. And here again, I would like to thank all Members who have spoken in support of a higher carbon tax rate, and particularly, I note Workers' Party's position. All Workers' Party Members – Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Louis Chua – supported the need for carbon tax and want an even higher carbon tax. They think that we are still too low at $50 to $80 per tonne. So, we have considered all that. As the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, I would really want to raise it as high as possible.”
“At $25 per tonne, the rise in carbon tax would translate to an estimated increase of about $4 per month in the utilities bill for an average 4-room Housing and Development Board (HDB) household. When the carbon tax was first introduced in 2019, U-Save rebates were provided to offer transitional support to help affected households adjust. We have been and will continue to support households with U-Save rebates. As Members would know, I think in the last six to 12 months, we have been supporting our households because of inflation, because of higher utilities costs. And it is no secret that we support households in 4-room flats for up to five months of utilities bills. And just to put things into context again, carbon tax as it stands now, for a year, every year, we are collecting to the grand tune of $200 million. That is all – $200 million. So, it is not enough to affect the costs of goods. Other effects, other inflationary pressures are coming in because of other factors. And just the utilities bills support, the U-Save rebates that I mentioned that go to households, cost the Government $580 million for FY2022. This is to give you a measure of the scale that we are talking about. We are prepared to support households even way above what we are collecting, whether it is GST or whether it is carbon tax. Members have the assurance that while we have fixed the carbon tax according to a schedule to give companies certainty, we will always be mindful about the needs of companies, the needs of households, the needs of society when the increase is implemented.”
“So, with humility, I would say that I find it hard to accept his suggestion for implementation. Ms Poh Li San and Mr Don Wee have pointed out that the Government does not expect to derive additional revenue from the upcoming revisions to the carbon tax and that is correct. The carbon tax revenue will be used to accelerate decarbonisation efforts and Singapore's inclusive transition to a green economy. Minister of State Low Yen Ling has spoken about how the Government is supporting our industry along their decarbonisation journey, In addition to energy efficiency support measures for businesses, Mr Mark Chay will be pleased to note that we have earmarked funds under the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 (RIE2025) plan for the research, development and demonstration of low-carbon technologies that can drive deeper decarbonisation. We will cushion the impact on our households. So, while I cannot accept Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's suggestion, we will have to, from time to time, evaluate our carbon tax. Maybe we have it too high, maybe we have it too low, maybe we can move faster, maybe there are already technologies out there that can make carbon capture cost-effective. We will have to change, but we need to give companies sufficient notice. And in a year when business is bad, or utilities' costs are high like what we are experiencing now, you can be assured that the Government will have very targeted measures that are relevant for that time and the same with households. Just for Members' information, $25 per tonne, is really our next step – from $5 to $25 in 2024. We have not even raised carbon tax yet. So, none of the higher utilities costs today is attributable to carbon tax – it is only to come in 2024.”
“Nobody can project what has happened. We have all seen how exogenous factors have affected our economic conditions. Who had expected COVID-19? Who has thought about the Ukraine war? So, what do we do? We go out to the market, stand in the Chamber here and say, "By the way, we are going to raise carbon tax. But we cannot be really sure. It is somewhere around $80 to $133 per tonne. But, you know, there is some middle number and then you can move around a bit." How can companies make plans like that? When you want them to invest in a plant that is energy-efficient, that captures carbon or uses green hydrogen, you have to tell them what is likely going to be the prevailing carbon tax so that when they do a multi-year calculation, as Member Leon Perera has stated that is what companies would do, sometimes even up to 10, 20 years, they need to have certainty. Otherwise, they will not be able to price in the effect of a higher carbon price. Otherwise, it will be unfair to companies who have invested in hydrogen and then turn around and find that there are no takers because the carbon price differential is missing. The Government said that it was going to do it, but because of the economic situation, is now not doing. So, we find it very hard to accept his suggestion. Also, he has suggested that maybe we should push back the tax. We are suggesting that we raise the carbon tax in 2024 and that leaves us six years to 2030. So, if you are going to push back one, two years until the recession is completely over – which I really do not know when that is going to be – that means that it leaves us with about four years to raise it from $5 to $100 per tonne. Is that better or not for companies?”
“So, rather than holding back our plans, the Government has been and will continue to provide support in a targeted manner to affected businesses and households as part of our longstanding commitment to an inclusive low-carbon transition. And this is where I listened very carefully to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, and I have difficulty accepting his recommendations on implementation. First, he has acknowledged that he has actually asked for a higher carbon tax range. He quoted, if I am not wrong, $80 to $133 as a range and with $100 as a useful midpoint or benchmark for our carbon tax level. So, this $80 to $133 is significantly higher than what we have stated, which is $50 to $80. So, I am glad that the Workers' Party is supporting an even higher carbon tax range. As the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, you are my best champion along with me. Second, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim went on to say that this is not a very good time, like many of the Members as well, because we have inflation, we have energy shortages. So, perhaps, instead of giving a fixed number that may bind the hands of policymakers of the future, he has suggested that the carbon tax adhere to a central rate but with a variable component that varies over time according to conditions of the economy. In other hands, scale back when the economy is in recession, raise when the economy is strong. I will have much difficulty in implementation. As much as Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has suggested this as a way to ease implementation, I would find it hard to implement. First of all, I would like Assoc Prof Jamus Lim to give me a three-year projection of what the economic conditions will be and then what that variation would be. Secondly, he said that MAS would be able to project that.”
“What if I tell you that one refinery is actually adopting very, very carbon-inefficient processes, the other one is way ahead? Without background information, without understanding its processes, you cannot just look at two numbers and say, "This is fair" or "this is not fair" and "Why are you all giving this?" There must be a workable system and I think, as Minister of State Low Yen Ling has explained, companies have to be benchmarked, they will have to produce their decarbonisation plans so that we can support them on a multi-year decarbonisation journey. For accountability to their stakeholders, we encourage all companies to size, analyse and publish their environmental impact to explain how they are managing emissions-related risks, in relation to their commitment to decarbonisation. Companies listed locally are already subjected to SGX requirements to do so, as in many jurisdictions globally. Nonetheless, we will study possible ways to better facilitate environmental impact disclosure in a manner that respects commercial sensitivity. We appreciate the concerns from Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Xie Yao Quan, Mr Mark Chay and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim that the revised carbon tax levels will lead to higher costs amidst rising inflationary pressures. Members of both sides of the House recognise that the effectiveness of a carbon tax to drive decarbonisation depends on the price level and have spoken in support of a raise in the carbon tax. We all agree that $5 is not right. So, we need to move. And global warming does not pause because of inflation.”
“This covers around 80% of Singapore's emissions, one of the most comprehensive in the world. Coupled with our existing taxes on transport fuels, which are not subjected to carbon tax – we have separate taxes on fuels – we are achieving around 90% coverage. We are one of the world's highest. Mr Louis Ng asked how compliance costs would increase if the next tier of facilities – that is, the reportable facilities – were taxed as well. Such facilities would have to incur not just the cost of reporting or the cost of paying taxes. They will have to get their reported emissions verified because, once you have to pay tax, we will need you to have it checked by experts, by auditors, and this will be a cost burden for a company, perhaps with a much lower carbon tax. So, it will be disproportionate to the carbon tax payable. Furthermore, as reportable facilities contribute only about 1% of Singapore's emissions, it would add little to the already high coverage of 80%. I thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Leon Perera for their suggestions on publishing carbon tax data, including those proposed as amendments to the Bill. Public disclosure of data needs to be contextualised, so that it can be interpreted fairly and meaningfully. Our large emitters have products and production processes that are often heterogenous, specialised and proprietary. Publishing the emissions or ranking of top emitters without providing context of the business and the nature or the size of its operation may not be helpful in understanding how well a company is doing in mitigating its emissions. Two refineries, same products altogether, both getting the same kind of allowances, is that definitely fair?”
“I hope that I have explained sufficiently how our overall framework supports transactions of high environmental standards and that there are sufficient safeguards in terms of the registry, in terms of standards that will allow a nascent system to grow. I understand that Ms He Ting Ru has suggested that perhaps we can have disclosure without financial details. But imagine if we are in a situation where we are discussing with companies on what type of ICC they are going to engage in and if a company has something that is groundbreaking, that requires significant ICC to justify the investment, but the system up there says that "Look, anything above 5% – disclosure, disclosure – even though details are not there, your names will be flashed on the papers". Do you think there will be more companies stepping forward or there will be fewer companies stepping forward? So, we have to be quite practical at this stage, feel our way through and then, if we find that 5% is, indeed, not sufficient, Members can be assured that I will come back to this Chamber to ask for this level to be increased because we are all in the same boat, we want the same thing, which is a well-functioning carbon credit system that has environmental integrity. I will now address the final group of issues which deal with balancing the interests of all stakeholders as we manage a fair and inclusive transition. Ms Janet Ang and Mr Louis Ng asked about the Government's plan for the carbon tax to be imposed on more emitters, beyond the large emitters. The current carbon tax threshold of 25,000 tonnes ensures that the carbon price is efficiently applied at key nodes of the economy and maximises coverage while it minimises – I would say optimises – the administrative burden on businesses.”
“As companies' use of voluntary carbon credits evolves, we will continue to study whether there is a need to adopt a more prescriptive approach. Ms Poh Li San and Ms Janet Ang raised concerns that setting the facility-level limit for the use of ICCs at 5% might be too low, considering the current limitations in technologies that can achieve emissions reduction at scale and the need to support a vibrant carbon market. As mentioned earlier, we are starting with 5% as the facility-level limit to prioritise domestic abatement efforts. Are we right? Does it have to be 5%? Can it be 8%? Can it be 3%? Nobody knows. We are in a new area. So, what we will do is to start at 5% as the limit that we think that we can manage and then, as the market develops, we will see how it goes and we will make changes along the way. So, I would just like to say to Members that in this phase, let us not be too prescriptive. Let us have an effective system that can help us grow from a very nascent stage to something that we can be proud of. If we start putting too many rules, it may make the scheme ineffective even if it can be the most transparent in the world. We will review the facility-level limit over time and align with international best practices, as carbon markets develop. This brings me to Ms He Ting Ru's proposed amendment pertaining to instances where the prescribed facility-level limit is lifted. We are not able to support this proposed amendment, as it involves the publication of identifiable information relating to the registered business facility and breaches the confidentiality of carbon tax data which companies are accorded under the CPA.”
“One notable example is the Climate Action Data Trust, or CAD Trust, which will be officially launched next month as a global market infrastructure supported by the World Bank, the International Emissions Trading Association and the Singapore Government. The CAD Trust will be anchored in Singapore to provide an open-source system to link and harmonise information about carbon credits and projects across registries globally. This initiative will drive market transparency, strengthen trust and advance global climate action. And Singapore, I think, is well-placed because we have developed trust and confidence with investors over decades, and we will maintain this confidence and high-level integrity in this new area that we go into as well. The CAD Trust will join a thriving ecosystem of over 70 organisations in Singapore, providing carbon services to the region and beyond. Ms Janet Ang asked if the Government plans to ensure the credibility of voluntary carbon trading activities in Singapore and manage related risks. Other Members also asked about the development of voluntary carbon trading activities. I would like to clarify again that the ICC framework does not apply to the voluntary carbon market. It is not envisaged for this Bill to address that. Our approach is to build up a vibrant carbon services ecosystem and provide the space for leading international and corporate initiatives to shape the voluntary marketplace. These include the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative and the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, which develop guidelines that promote the trading of voluntary carbon credits with high environmental integrity.”
“Second, on the economy and creating growth opportunities, specifically, how the Government will unlock supply of ICC and support the growth of the carbon services and trading ecosystem in Singapore. I agree with Ms Janet Ang on the importance of diversifying our sources of credit supply, including our source countries and the types of carbon credit projects. I spoke earlier about our Government-to-Government engagements, which are progressing well. We will advance talks with like-minded countries to establish implementation agreements and bilateral frameworks to guide interested parties to procure and trade in high-quality credits. At the technical level, we are working closely with key players in the carbon services and trading ecosystem to develop the ICC framework. In July, NEA signed MOUs with leading carbon crediting programmes, namely, Verra and Gold Standard, which, together, account for over 70% of global carbon credit issuances. With these MOUs in place, companies will be able to acquire eligible ICC from projects registered with these programmes and surrender them to offset part of their carbon tax liabilities. Our intent is for the ICC framework to catalyse local demand in carbon markets and support our vision of establishing Singapore as a carbon services and trading hub. Carbon services are a promising potential growth area for Singapore that can create good, green jobs for Singaporeans, while contributing to the global agenda on climate change. Growth in carbon markets will drive demand for jobs related to low-carbon project development, financing, consultancy and measurement, reporting and verification, or MRV. Singapore is well-placed to leverage these opportunities.”
“On the carbon credits registry, later this week, NEA will be calling a tender for the development of the International Carbon Credits Registry, or ICC Registry. When ready, the registry will serve as a record-keeping system to track and account for the usage of ICC by carbon tax-liable companies to offset their taxable emissions. The ICC registry will be an integral part of our ICC framework. In developing and implementing our ICC framework, we have been and will continue to work closely with industry players, green groups and other key stakeholders. Sir, I have explained quite extensively how we developed our ICC framework with high standards – CORSIA, additionality, permanence, Paris Agreement Article 6, no double-counting, registry and so on. There is also a parallel work stream that is going on on the voluntary market side. So, MAS, the Singapore Exchange (SGX), for example, are hard at work to contribute to credible and robust taxonomies. This is a very nascent area and I think many parties, many different organisations, different sectors, are working very quickly to get alignment and harmonisation of standards. Singapore must be there in order to have the first-mover advantage that Ms Janet Ang has talked about. In this way, we hope that by having the ICC as a foundation, the voluntary markets can take guidance and also benefit from the carbon services competencies that we will help develop in Singapore. So, although this Bill does not address the voluntary carbon market, which I will talk about later on, I hope that my explanation on what we are doing on ICC will help address some of the concerns over greenwashing.”
“As Ms Janet Ang has highlighted, we must ensure that the carbon credits surrendered, or "offset", are of high environmental integrity. Ms He Ting Ru brought up the same point. Our ICC framework will be underpinned by a set of robust criteria, which will, minimally, be aligned to the CORSIA standards which have been endorsed internationally. CORSIA standards are amongst the most rigorous in carbon markets worldwide and they include criteria, such as additionality and permanence – issues that Ms He Ting Ru has mentioned. "Additionality" means that emission reductions must be "above business as usual" levels. Permanence requires emission reductions to be durable and irreversible. Furthermore, we will ensure alignment with international rules, such as Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. One such requirement is "no double counting". Double counting occurs when an eligible ICC accrues to both Singapore and the host country producing this ICC. To prevent this ICC from being double counted, the host country must authorise a corresponding adjustment, to "give up" the emissions reduction to Singapore. These are standards which must be mutually agreed upon when we conclude carbon credits collaboration with partner countries. We will publish a whitelist of ICCs that are acceptable, which will highlight the eligible host countries, carbon crediting programmes and methodologies. This will provide more clarity to companies and to the public on what our eligibility criteria entail. By placing emphasis on the quality of eligible ICC surrendered, we ensure that companies exercise care and due diligence in sourcing high-quality ICC responsibly and avoid the associated pitfalls, as Ms Janet Ang and Ms He Ting Ru have highlighted.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and constructive views on this Bill. I am heartened that all Members agree that the revised carbon tax regime set out in the Bill is a decisive step in climate action. The revised carbon tax levels will incentivise energy and carbon efficiency in all sectors and tilt the scales in favour of additional decarbonisation solutions, such as CCUS and low-carbon hydrogen. They have been calibrated to enable the pace of transformation needed to achieve our net-zero ambition, while allowing businesses to stay economically competitive as they embark on their low-carbon transition. Our approach provides certainty by giving advance notice to companies and announcing the rates ahead of time. I will respond to Members' questions on the issues raised, under three broad themes. First, the environment. How do we maintain a strong impetus, ensuring that the allowances granted under the transition framework do not blunt the purpose of the carbon price and that the ICC regime is robust? Minister of State Low Yen Ling has addressed Members' questions on the transition framework and industry support schemes. I will speak about the ICC regime shortly. Second, the economy. Members spoke on the need to maintain our economic competitiveness amidst the transition to a low-carbon economy, which Minister of State Low Yen Ling has spoken on. Many Members have also highlighted how this new carbon tax regime can create new growth opportunities. How can we support a vibrant carbon services ecosystem in Singapore which can create good, green jobs for Singaporeans? Third, the society. As we update the carbon tax regime, how do we deliver an inclusive transition towards a low-carbon society? Let me address these issues in turn. First, on the environment.”
“Just a clarification, Mr Speaker. I have listened very intently to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. And I appreciate his suggestion about making carbon tax vary in time, with the economic situation, with GDP or some projections that is short-term. I will address that later on in my Second Reading closing speech. But there is a big chunk in the middle that talks about EXIM bank, that talks about financing. I would just like to clarify, whether he finds relevance of what he said to the Bill that we are moving today. In what way is MSE, as the Ministry moving this Bill responsible for what you have just said? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I thank that the Minister for her question. As I have explained at the beginning of my speech, the bulk of what I am talking about is about a transition process. That is the whole point of why I am interested in speaking about the mechanism for getting to that process, while we are talking about the carbon tax.”
“The Bill will also introduce amendments to improve tax administration. To minimise unintended gaps in carbon tax collection when there is a transfer in operational control over a taxable facility, the Bill will amend various sections of the CPA to impose revised registration, reporting and payment obligations. To reduce compliance costs, the deregistration criteria will be expanded to allow companies to apply for deregistration if their facility has ceased operations. In addition, NEA will be empowered to deregister a registered company and facility if the person has wound up, been dissolved, or ceased to exist. As the carbon tax level is raised from 2024 onwards, the Bill will also prescribe the treatment for the carryover or refund of FPCC purchased at the "old" price and increase the thresholds for waivers of small assessments and appeals to the High Court by a commensurate degree, to simplify administration and minimise the regulatory burden on taxable facilities. Mr Speaker, to conclude, the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill will ensure that our carbon pricing regime remains fit for future; strengthens the impetus for businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint and supports the growth of the green economy; in particular, by contributing to the establishment of high-integrity, internationally credible carbon markets. It is informed by our principled, balanced approach to carbon pricing and reflects Singapore's unwavering commitment to decisive climate action. With that, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“This limit is aligned with other comparable jurisdictions with similar climate ambitions, such as South Korea and California, and ensures that the ICC framework does not diminish the impetus for companies to cut emissions. We will continue to review the facility-level limit over time to align with international developments. The ICC framework parameters apply only to companies that are carbon tax-liable and are surrendering credits to fulfil part of their carbon tax liabilities. They do not apply to the voluntary carbon market, where any company can purchase carbon credits to offset their own carbon footprint voluntarily and as part of their corporate climate targets. The Bill will also update the list of greenhouse gases to keep pace with the latest global developments and refine carbon tax administration. The list of greenhouse gases and their Global Warming Potential values will be updated in the First and Second Schedules to the CPA, in line with newer standards adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Bill will also amend the Second Schedule to remove nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), as a non-reckonable greenhouse gas. This will bring NF3 emissions within the coverage of the carbon tax. We intend to do so from 2024 onwards. This is aligned with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Katowice rulebook, which require all parties to include NF3 in the reporting of their national emissions inventory by 2024. The inclusion of NF3 will mainly affect facilities in the Electronics sector, but transitional support will be provided to affected companies through grants and incentives, such as the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions and Investment Allowance for Emissions Reduction.”
“First, to introduce the definition of an ICC, as a certificate representing one tonne of emissions reductions or removals generated from projects and programmes outside Singapore; and two, to allow companies to surrender eligible ICC as a valid alternative mode of carbon tax payment, in addition to FPCC. The ICC framework will ensure that the ICC surrendered are of high environmental integrity and compliant with Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The new section 33A will stipulate that all ICC surrendered must adhere to a set of eligibility criteria, which will be prescribed in subsidiary legislation. We intend for our eligibility criteria to minimally reference the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or it is more commonly known as CORSIA standards. These are a set of environmental integrity standards that have been developed and backed by a multilateral process led by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), in consultation with green groups and experts, and are widely regarded as some of the most rigorous in the industry. As the market for carbon credits is nascent and growing, we will review our eligibility criteria periodically to align with developments. I should emphasise that while the ICC framework provides a complementary pathway for companies to decarbonise, reducing emissions through domestic abatement efforts will remain our priority. Hence, the new section 33B will stipulate that the ICC surrendered must be capped at a prescribed facility-level limit. This is currently intended to be set at 5% of taxable emissions and will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation.”
“Two, much-needed finance can be channelled to support emissions reduction or removal projects globally. Three, these projects can bring valuable co-benefits, such as biodiversity conservation and air pollution reduction. The development of well-functioning carbon markets is, thus, a vital part of global efforts to get to net zero. With the finalisation of Paris Agreement Article 6 rulebook at COP26, countries can now cooperate through carbon markets to mutually support their respective climate targets and the raising of global climate ambition. As an alternative-energy disadvantaged country with limited domestic mitigation potential, Singapore is keenly exploring these new possibilities. In recent months, we have signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with Indonesia, Morocco, Colombia and Vietnam; and exchanged Letters of Intent with Ghana to affirm our shared commitment towards advancing cooperation and capability building on carbon markets. We will step up our efforts to engage more like-minded partner countries with credible climate targets, both in the region and beyond. Under the ICC framework, companies will have the option to tap on eligible ICC to fulfil part of their carbon tax liability. Currently, companies only have one mode of carbon tax payment – by surrendering a corresponding amount of Fixed-Price Carbon Credits (FPCC), as referred to in the Bill, purchased from NEA at the prevailing carbon tax level. The Bill will amend existing sections 2 and 17 of the CPA respectively.”
“Similar to our corporate income tax framework under the Economic Expansion Incentive (Relief from Income Tax) Act 1967, the industry transition framework will be administered by the Minister for Trade and Industry, who can assign relevant functions and powers to an appropriate public body. To drive our industry towards becoming best-in-class, the amount of allowances awarded to each facility will be determined based on their performance on specified energy efficiency or carbon intensity benchmarks, or their decarbonisation plans. Companies in non-EITE sectors can continue to tap on support from the Government through broad-based schemes such as the Economic Development Board (EDB)'s Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions and the National Environment Agency (NEA)'s Energy Efficiency Fund. Third, the Bill will set up the International Carbon Credits framework, or ICC framework, through sections 33A to 33D in Part 5 of the CPA. The ICCs referred to in the Bill are tradable certificates that represent the reduction or removal of emissions from the atmosphere, generated from projects or programmes outside Singapore. These carbon credits are generated by emissions reduction or removal projects that would not have materialised under a business-as-usual scenario, but are made possible due to financing from carbon markets. Examples include reforestation projects that sequester more carbon in the atmosphere; or projects that help local communities switch from firewood to cleaner biogas cookstoves, which reduce emissions from current sources. A robust carbon market which efficiently matches the demand and supply of high-quality carbon credits has multiple benefits. One, carbon-emitting companies gain access to an alternative decarbonisation pathway for hard-to-abate emissions.”
“First, the Bill will amend the Third Schedule to the Carbon Pricing Act, or CPA, to adopt the revised carbon tax levels of $25 per tonne for greenhouse gas emissions in 2024 and 2025, and $45 per tonne for greenhouse gas emissions in 2026 and beyond. We have decided to raise the carbon tax level progressively in phases and with advance notice, to give our businesses time to plan and carry out their low-carbon transition. The progressive increases will set us on a trajectory to reach between $50 to $80 per tonne by 2030. Second, the Bill will insert new sections 20A to 20G in Part 5 of the CPA to set out the broad parameters of the industry transition framework, which will provide transitory allowances to companies in Emissions-Intensive Trade-Exposed, or EITE, sectors that face intense competition in the global market. We are mindful that our EITE companies will face higher costs than their counterparts in jurisdictions with no or lower effective carbon prices. These transitory allowances will not offset the entire carbon tax obligation of the EITE companies. It will be limited to only a portion of companies' emissions, help to alleviate near-term competitiveness concerns, and provide a form of support to the companies as they work on reducing emissions and invest in cleaner technologies. By providing for a transition framework, we minimise the risk of carbon leakage—where companies relocate to another jurisdiction with less stringent climate policies. Similar frameworks have also been implemented in other jurisdictions with carbon pricing regimes, including the EU, South Korea, and California.”
“The carbon price provides an effective policy to motivate emitters to take action to reduce their emissions. Setting the price at the right level requires careful calibration. Too low a carbon price will not provide sufficient incentive to make the necessary changes to achieve our emissions target. Too high a price will make the change too steep, erode competitiveness and destabilise our corporate sector. The proposed carbon price was set after carefully balancing the environmental, economic and social needs of our country. We have considered the availability of cost-effective green technologies and products, the pace of change we need to have and that our private sector can manage, and the support we need to give our companies and people to cushion the impact where necessary. All that with the intention of reaching our net-zero pathway. Carbon pricing has been implemented in many countries. Close to 70 jurisdictions worldwide have implemented carbon pricing instruments, covering about a quarter of global emissions. Major economies, such as the European Union (EU), are driving global convergence through the imposition of carbon border adjustment mechanisms, intending to place equivalent tariffs on imports from countries with low or no carbon prices. Members from both sides of the aisle have spoken in support of a higher carbon price on multiple occasions. At Budget 2022, the Government announced that Singapore will raise the carbon tax and make a decisive move to achieve our net-zero ambition. The Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill will give effect to the key changes announced at Budget 2022 and strengthen our carbon pricing regime.”
“Collectively, we must do better to turn the tide and secure a liveable and sustainable future. Two weeks ago, at the Singapore International Energy Week, Deputy Prime Minister Wong announced that Singapore will raise our ambition to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. We will also revise our medium-term international commitment – our Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC – to peak our emissions earlier, and reduce our emissions to around 60 million tonnes by 2030. Singaporeans have shown strong support towards our green transition, as announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. Our stakeholder consultations show that an overwhelming majority of corporates, non-government organisations (NGOs) and citizens believe that addressing climate change is a key priority. We are making headway in our green transition. We are decarbonising our power sector by increasing solar deployment and harnessing green electricity imports from the region. Our National Hydrogen Strategy was recently unveiled at the Singapore International Energy Week. We are partnering major industry players in the Energy and Chemicals sector to develop needle-moving solutions such as carbon capture and storage. We have enhanced grant support for companies hoping to deploy energy-efficient technologies. We will promote resource circularity in our local industry to further reduce energy consumption and curb emissions. We are greening our public transport operations and expanding the electric vehicle ecosystem. And we are venturing beyond our shores and seeking out opportunities for international collaboration on green technologies and carbon markets, to get to net zero. We need an effective carbon price to activate carbon mitigation solutions that will help us achieve our net-zero ambition.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This House has spoken extensively about the urgent need to address climate change. It is the greatest existential challenge to humanity today. Members have endorsed a Motion last year declaring climate change a global emergency and a threat to mankind; and another Motion this year calling on the Government to advance Singapore's inclusive transition towards a low-carbon society, in partnership with corporates, civil society and the community. Both Motions received support from all sides of the House. The world is already experiencing more extreme weather events, from devastating floods in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia and Australia, to the record-breaking droughts and heat waves in Europe, China and Africa. In the absence of more ambitious climate action, the toll on human lives and livelihoods will be massive. By 2050, it is estimated that climate change could lead to 250,000 excess deaths per year worldwide and reduce global annual output by US$23 trillion – the equivalent of wiping out the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States. Recent events – the war in Ukraine, ongoing COVID-19 pandemic – have caused economic hardship and energy shortages throughout the world, casting a dark shadow on climate action. We must press on as climate change does not wait for events to be over. Countries are gathering in Egypt for the 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP27, to implement the Paris Agreement goals of capping long-term temperature rise and enhancing climate resilience. In their latest report released ahead of COP27, the UN Climate Change Secretariat has warned that the world is not on course to meet these targets.”
“Notwithstanding these uncertainties, we remain committed to achieving what we set out in the Second Update to our 2030 NDC – for our emissions in 2030 to be around 60 million tonnes, or five million tonnes lower than what we set out in the First Update in 2020. This five million tonnes reduction is substantial. It is more than the total emissions from households today. We have put in place a comprehensive package of mitigation measures under the five pillars of the Green Plan to achieve this.”
“The REACH public consultation on Singapore's Raised Climate Ambition was part of a comprehensive series of engagements that the Government has carried out since April 2022, under the Singapore Green Plan 2030. Through these engagements, we have received feedback and views from more than 1,700 stakeholders. The National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) has published the summary of feedback from these stakeholders, as well as more detailed feedback from the REACH public consultation on Singapore's Raised Climate Ambition on its website on 25 October 2022. Both reports address the question raised by Prof Koh Lian Pin. The Singapore Government has just submitted Singapore's Second Update to our 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the submission, we indicated that Singapore intends to reduce emissions to around 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2030 after peaking our emissions earlier. Peaking our emissions earlier than 2030 is significant and requires substantial transformations across industry, economy and society. Unlike countries that have access to abundant abatement resources domestically, Singapore has to rely on external measures, such as electricity imports and carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). Negotiations with foreign partners on several arrangements are still ongoing. As such, it is premature to announce a precise year in which our emissions will peak. The Government's best estimate is for our emissions to peak between 2025 and 2028, which will be earlier than our previous 2030 target, at around 65 million tonnes.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address this question from Prof Koh Lian Pin and written Question No 14 from Member Ms He Ting Ru, as well as Question No 29 for oral answer raised by Prof Koh Lian Pin from yesterday, in a single reply, please?”
“NEA takes a serious view of defeat devices that allow vehicles to override the exhaust treatment system and bypass the control of pollutant emissions. NEA has been working with Government agencies, vehicle manufacturers and inspection centres to monitor the prevalence of such devices. We will take firm enforcement action to address the use of defeat devices, including against vehicle owners, who knowingly use defeat devices to mislead, conceal or deceive the Government of their vehicles’ actual exhaust emissions.”
“Given our limited abatement options, Singapore relies on international collaboration and emerging technologies, such as electricity imports and carbon capture, utilisation and storage to reduce its emissions. Given their nascency, we do not have year-on-year projections from now to 2029.”
“The Best Practice Guide for organising environmentally-friendly events contains a list of guidelines which all organisations are encouraged to adopt to make their events more environmentally-friendly. Under GreenGov.SG, the public sector’s environmental sustainability movement, public agencies are required to comply with the practices listed under the "Must Do" section of the guide, where feasible. We will continue to study how to reduce the public sector’s environmental footprint.”
“The Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) public consultation on Singapore’s Raised Climate Ambition was part of a comprehensive series of engagements that the Government has carried out since April 2022, under the Singapore Green Plan 2030. Through these engagements, we have received feedback and views from more than 1,700 stakeholders. The National Climate Change Secretariat has published the summary of feedback from these stakeholders, as well as more detailed feedback from the REACH public consultation on Singapore’s Raised Climate Ambition, on its website on 25 October 2022.”
“Recalcitrant offenders may be fined up to $4,000 for the second offence and up to $10,000 for subsequent offences. Offenders may also be issued with a Corrective Work Order. Upholding high standards of public cleanliness and keeping the pest bird population under control are a collective effort. We seek everyone’s cooperation to avoid feeding birds and to keep Singapore clean.”
“NEA works closely with NParks and Town Councils to address high-rise bird-feeding. This could involve residents leaving food for birds on windowsills or throwing food out of windows, which constitutes high-rise littering. NParks adopts a holistic suite of measures to deter illegal bird-feeding, including enforcement, public education and outreach. NParks partners Town Councils, the Municipal Services Office (MSO), People’s Association (PA) and Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to engage persistent feeders, including those who leave food on windowsills, to discourage them from feeding birds. Last year, NParks also launched the "Say No to Feeding Wildlife" campaign to raise awareness on the negative impacts of feeding wildlife, such as birds. To increase public awareness and deter high-rise littering, including high-rise bird-feeding, NEA partners Town Councils to deploy standees and posters at HDB blocks, highlighting ongoing surveillance and statistics on incidents, as well as the environmental and social consequences of high-rise littering. NParks and Town Councils work together to enforce against illegal bird-feeding, through ground surveillance at hotspots and targeted enforcement operations. In 2020, NParks introduced stiffer penalties under the Wildlife Act for the illegal feeding of wildlife, including birds. Offenders can now be fined up to $5,000 for their first offence of illegal wildlife-feeding, and up to $10,000 for subsequent offences. For high-rise bird-feeding which results in food waste being littered in public areas, enforcement may be taken for such acts of littering under the Environmental Public Health Act. First-time litterbugs may be fined up to $2,000.”
“To reduce the public’s exposure to the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke, NEA has progressively extended the smoking prohibition to cover more than 49,000 places island-wide. My Ministry and NEA will continue to consider further smoking prohibition extensions from time to time. Such extensions have to be carefully considered, as smoking is already prohibited in many places within residential estates, such as at void decks, covered walkways, playgrounds and exercise areas. Further extensions may inadvertently push smokers to other areas within residential estates and create disamenities in other parts of the neighbourhoods. We encourage smokers to be considerate to others around them.”
“On average, about 6,500 households had their water flow rate reduced due to arrears in utilities payments annually between 2017 and 2021. This is less than 0.5% of the total number of households in Singapore. The median duration in the past five years for such a reduced water flow rate is two days. The normal flow rate is restored once the arrears are cleared or when payment arrangements have been made with SP Services.”
“This will be addressed with similar Parliamentary Questions at the next Parliament Sitting on 8 November 2022. [Please refer to "Reaching Peak of Singapore's Carbon Dioxide-equivalent Emissions", Official Report, 8 November 2022, Vol 95, Issue 74, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“The Carbon Pricing Act 2018 requires business facilities with annual emissions between 2,000 and 25,000 tonnes to register as reportable facilities. Currently, there are 81 reportable facilities. The percentage of Singapore's emissions contributed by these facilities has remained steady at about 1%. In comparison, taxable facilities with annual emissions exceeding 25,000 tonnes account for about 80% of Singapore's emissions.”
“NEA takes a serious view of high-rise littering, including that of cigarette butts, which dirties the environment, could be challenging to clear and poses a potential fire hazard. In the past four years, 54% of total high-rise littering offences enforced by NEA were for high-rise cigarette butt littering. Of these, about 95% were caught on the surveillance cameras deployed. Enforcement actions were taken against about 400 high-rise cigarette butt littering offenders per year between 2019 and 2021. From January 2022 to September 2022, enforcement actions were taken against close to 130 offenders. DNA testing is not being considered for high-rise littering enforcement. Matching DNA evidence from the cigarette butt to a specific offender would require the collection of DNA information from selected residents in the implicated building stack or unit and raise significant privacy concerns. NEA will continue to study other approaches and technologies to address high-rise littering.”
“Depending on the complexity of the case, NEA, generally, takes 10 weeks to six months to enforce against an offender, from the time the high-rise littering act is successfully captured by surveillance cameras. Often, our surveillance cameras were unable to capture the incidence of high-rise littering. There are also many cases where, despite our best efforts, the offender cannot be identified even if there is evidence of high-rise littering being committed from a particular flat. Based on the high-rise littering cases investigated in 2019 to 2021, the identity of the offender could not be identified in about 15% of the cases, on average. We, therefore, need to consider alternative approaches to better address high-rise littering, including having residents take stronger ownership in preventing such acts from their homes. I thank the Member for her suggestion to introduce legislation to impose liability for high-rise littering on the owners or tenants of the particular unit where the high-rise littering is proven to have been committed. My Ministry will consider how such a law can be applied with proper safeguards, consult relevant stakeholders, including the public, and ensure that the law is applied judiciously.”
“High-rise littering is a serious offence, as it poses a danger to the public, dirties the environment and potentially threatens our public hygiene. NEA adopts a holistic approach in tackling high-rise littering, which includes enforcement, surveillance and public education to influence behaviour and cultivate good habits. When feedback on high-rise littering is reported to NEA, NEA will work with the relevant Town Council to issue advisories to residents in the affected building stack and gather relevant information on the suspected units. For persistent cases and where NEA has gathered sufficient leads, surveillance cameras with video analytics will be deployed at appropriate vantage points to monitor the suspected units in the relevant building stack and record acts of high-rise littering for investigation and enforcement. Since 2020, NEA has enhanced its interventions to better tackle high-rise littering and resolve cases expeditiously. These include substantially increasing the number of high-rise littering camera deployments and streamlining investigation processes for swifter enforcement action against offenders. There has been some success, as the average time taken to resolve cases was reduced by about 25% from 2019 to 2021. However, feedback on high-rise littering has continued to outpace our efforts to enhance capabilities and measures. Prior to 2019, an average of 16,000 feedback cases were received each year. From 2019 to 2021, the feedback had increased to 22,000, 35,000 and 32,000 cases respectively. Investigation into high-rise littering cases remains resource-intensive and time-consuming despite our best efforts. Effort is needed to gather information to guide camera deployments and, subsequently, identify the high-rise littering offender.”