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 7 of 46.
“A global approach gives the world our best chance at addressing the challenges of climate change. As a small low-lying island state, climate change is an existential challenge for Singapore. We are firmly committed to working within a rules-based multilateral system to maintain the momentum of global climate action to ensure Singapore’s environmental sustainability and climate resilience. To meet our climate goals, Singapore has developed an ambitious, forward-looking and diversified suite of measures that will reduce the carbon footprint of our economy and society. To fulfil our obligations under the Paris Agreement, we submitted our 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on 10 February 2025, where we committed to reduce emissions to between 45 and 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2035. This builds on our previous climate commitments and sets us on a trajectory towards net-zero emissions by 2050. We are also partnering the global community, including other governments, corporations, academia, international organisations and non-governmental organisations, through various bilateral and plurilateral mechanisms to develop low-carbon solutions and technologies, support the energy transition, enable green financing, create green economic opportunities, and accelerate implementation through knowledge sharing and collaboration. Notwithstanding the announcement by the United States to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, we continue to be open to engaging and partnering like-minded stakeholders to pursue our shared aspirations for a low-carbon, climate resilient society and economy.”
“Shell Singapore Pte Ltd (Shell) submitted its investigation report on 20 November 2024 on the cause of the oil leak incident on 20 October 2024 and the key aspects of Shell’s response, including the events between the discovery of the oil spill and the notification of agencies. As the joint investigation by the National Environment Agency and Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore is still ongoing, it would not be appropriate to reveal any details at this time.”
“The National Environment Agency (NEA) monitors the waste disposal trends across housing estates in Singapore and works closely with appointed Public Waste Collectors (PWCs) to ensure the timely collection of refuse and recyclables. This helps to maintain estate cleanliness and safeguard public health. Under the public waste collection contracts, NEA can direct PWCs to increase the frequency of refuse and recyclables collection when necessary. NEA has exercised this provision when needed, for example, during festive seasons where waste generation tends to increase. There are, therefore, no plans to increase the capacity of refuse and recycling bins. We encourage members of the public to practise proper etiquette, such as by flattening cardboard boxes, when using refuse and recycling bins to help maximise their capacity and contribute to keeping our environment clean.”
“The National Environment Agency (NEA) puts vacant cooked food stalls at its hawker centres up for tender every month to ensure that stalls are allocated in a fair and transparent manner. The median rent for successful tenders was around $1,800 in 2023. Under NEA's policy, the rental of successfully tendered stalls are adjusted towards the Assessed Market Rent at the end of their initial three-year tenancy term. As a result, the median monthly rent for all non-subsidised cooked food stalls in hawker centres managed by NEA has remained relatively stable at around $1,250 between 2015 and 2023. At Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHCs), stall rentals are proposed upfront by SEHC operators in their tender bids to NEA. The operators are not allowed to vary hawkers' rent over their tenancy term or subject the stall rentals to bidding. As of 2023, there were 12 SEHCs in operation and the median stall rent is $1,700. There are many factors, such as location, stall sizes, food types and competition from other food and beverage outlets in the vicinity, that attribute to the varying rentals.”
“Under the 1962 Johore River Water Agreement (62WA), which will expire in 2061, Singapore can draw up to 250 million gallons of water a day from the Johor River and is obliged to provide Johor with treated water, up to 2% of the water we import. At the recent 11th Malaysia-Singapore Leaders' Retreat, both countries emphasised their commitments in ensuring the obligations under the 62WA are fulfilled and to continuing the productive collaboration between both sides. To meet growing water demand and strengthen our water security, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) has and will continue to invest in our water infrastructure. For example, in 2022, Singapore's 5th desalination plant, the Jurong Island Desalination Plant, was officially opened. PUB also announced in late 2024 that it will be expanding the upcoming Tuas NEWater Factory. Apart from ensuring adequate infrastructural capacity, PUB has also introduced measures to moderate growth in water demand. The Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme helps households make well-informed choices when purchasing water fittings and appliances that save water. In consultation with the industry, PUB introduced water efficiency requirements in 2024 for new projects in specific water-intensive industries with high potential for water recycling. To support organisations which are seeking to improve their water efficiency, PUB enhanced the Water Efficiency Fund in 2023. By making informed choices and using water wisely, everyone can contribute to the sustainability of our water resources.”
“The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) requires all food businesses and importers selling meat products, whether through physical stores or e-commerce platforms, to ensure that their products come from accredited sources. SFA works with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority to conduct border inspections and with e-commerce platforms to delist meat products that do not comply with our regulations. Travellers may bring in food items from abroad for their own consumption, provided that the food is from an approved source within SFA's list of allowable food items and the specified weight limits. This information is available on the SFA website. Meat products from Malaysia are currently not on the approved list. SFA will be implementing a revised private consumption policy to allow each traveller to bring in a total of 15 kilogrammes of food across all categories from any country for their personal consumption. However, products of higher regulatory concern, such as animal blood products and game meat, will continue to be disallowed. The revised policy will be implemented under the Food Safety and Security Bill (FSSB) that was passed in Parliament in January 2025. As the FSSB is extensive, it will be implemented in phases by 2028 to facilitate a smooth transition for the industry and for SFA to put in place the necessary processes and systems to continue to safeguard food safety.”
“This question has been addressed with similar Parliamentary Questions on flooding and drainage improvement at the Parliament Sitting on 4 February 2025. Please refer to the reply to Questions Nos 5 and 6 in the 4 February 2025 Order Paper. [Please refer to "Reviewing Adequacy of Drainage Systems following Flash Floods Due To Recent Monsoon Surges", Official Report, 4 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 150, Oral Answers to Questions section.]”
“Foodborne gastroenteritis incidents in schools were found to be linked to both food supplied by caterers and canteen stall holders. Although, given caterers' higher volume of food distribution, they pose risks of larger scale foodborne illness incidents. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) adopts a range of measures to safeguard food safety of catered food. All licensed food caterers, including those supplying food to school canteens, are required to comply with food safety requirements, such as training of all food handlers, maintaining cleanliness of premises, ensuring all catered food have a timestamp indicating the date and time by which the food should be consumed and appointing a Food Hygiene Officer to oversee and implement food safety measures. All licensed caterers are subjected to food safety inspections, with those having track records of past infringements and food safety-related feedback subjected to stepped-up surveillance. Caterers who are detected with food safety lapses may be given demerit points and those who accumulate more than 12 points within a year may be required to suspend their operations. SFA also regularly engages food caterers to promote awareness of measures to prevent common lapses detected in food poisoning incidents. The Ministry of Education works with school canteen operators to comply with SFA's food safety standards and requirements. Schools regularly remind students on the importance of personal hygiene, such as the washing of hands before meals. Students also learn about food safety, food contamination and the importance of consuming food within the stipulated timings, through Food and Consumer Education.”
“This is informed by data collected from PUB's surveys and assessments. Second, PUB monitors the water pipe network with sensors to detect leaks early and responds promptly to minimise disruption. Third, where there are construction works nearby, PUB requires the developer and contractor to put in place monitoring measures to reduce the risk of pipe damage. We are taking steps to ensure that our water infrastructure is adequately protected against extreme weather events. PUB has worked with the Building and Construction Authority to ensure that standards for slope protection are in place to extreme weather, to ensure that our canals and drains are guarded against the risk of slope failure and blockage. In addition, PUB has recently called a consultancy study to assess the stability of slopes adjacent to our major waterways. PUB is also stepping up the monitoring of its water pipe network after extreme weather events. Where PUB is alerted to incidents of soil movements following such weather events, PUB will carry out additional leak surveys of the water pipes in the vicinity to detect and arrest any developing leaks.”
“In 2024, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) received reports of and repaired 267 pipe leaks in its water pipe network. This translates to 4.5 leaks per 100 kilometres of water pipe per year, which places PUB amongst the top-performing utilities globally. In more than 90% of pipe leak incidents, PUB is able to repair the water pipe without interruption to water supply. Where water supply is interrupted, PUB arrives on-site within two hours and is typically able to restore water supply within four hours. During such interruptions, PUB offers several forms of support to households and businesses, including (a) deploying mobile water wagons and distributing water bags; (b) laying temporary connection hoses to bring in alternate water supply; and (c) communicating regular updates on pipe repair status and expected restoration times. In rare instances where there is property damage, PUB will provide additional assistance in the recovery effort, such as helping with the cleaning up. For leaks from privately-owned water pipes, the owner or managing agent is responsible for isolating the leak and carrying out repairs. If they are unable to do so, PUB will assist to shut the water supply to the premises to facilitate their repair works. The owner or managing agent is similarly expected to provide temporary water supply and update affected households or businesses. Where required, PUB is prepared to provide technical advice and temporary water supply to the owner or managing agent. PUB has a comprehensive leak management programme to prevent, detect and pre-empt leaks in its water pipe network. First, to prevent leaks, PUB periodically assesses the condition of its pipes and proactively renews at-risk and leak-prone pipes.”
“Singapore is committed to our target of attaining net zero emissions by 2050. Our 2035 Nationally Determined Contribution, which we will be submitting on 10 February 2025 as required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, will keep Singapore on track to achieve our 2050 target. Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security Teo Chee Hean, Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change, will elaborate on this at the upcoming Committee of Supply debate.”
“At approximately 9.30 am on 26 December 2024, Shell Singapore Pte Ltd (Shell) discovered oil sheens in the waters off Shell Energy and Chemicals Park Singapore at Pulau Bukom. Shell informed the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) and National Environment Agency (NEA) of the oil sheens around 12.00 noon and 1.15 pm respectively. An MPA craft arrived on site at 12.15 pm to assess the situation and provide support. Shell completed the clean-up works on 28 December 2024 and there were no other oil sightings since then. Shell estimated that a few tonnes of refined oil products were leaked into the water. Shell's investigations are still ongoing. Meanwhile, as a precautionary measure, Shell has carried out pipeline integrity checks across its Bukom facility and enhanced the monitoring of various discharge points leading to the watercourse. Agencies are still investigating the incident and will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement actions if any lapses are uncovered. To ensure that appropriate measures are in place to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, NEA and relevant agencies have requested Shell's senior management to account for the overall operations and maintenance system at their Bukom facility. NEA has also directed Shell to engage an independent consultant to review the facilities and practices at its Bukom facility. In addition to regular inspections on industrial facilities, NEA has reminded the operators of all similar facilities to ensure that inspections, maintenance and repairs, as well as emergency response procedures are regularly reviewed and updated. Relevant learning points from the oil leak incidents will be shared with the operators of other similar industrial facilities.”
“I mean, when I was a child growing up, I remember that floods occurred in much wider areas more frequently, and many more businesses, including some in Chinatown, for example, quite regularly suffered from the impact of heavy rain and flooding. I think over the years, this has significantly been reduced. As I have mentioned, in the most recent monsoon surges, we only had one significant reported flood incident. As and when they are needed, we will offer more help and we will keep a very close contact with the public and the businesses when it comes to engaging them on deployment of flood protection devices.”
“I think I have alluded in the earlier reply that we are working with NEA for better forecasts and also giving us more localised forecasts. Because, I think, when it comes to flooding, it is very localised, especially in Singapore when our floods occur in very small areas. So, it is all the more important for us to get very high resolution of forecasts in the very near term. So, that is something that we are working on, including with NEA and the Meteorological Service Singapore to have more sensors and better modelling in flood projection. We are also working with LTA to try to get some of these traffic advisories out faster. For example, we are working to include some of these warning advisories in the ERP 2.0 so that we can receive the early warnings as we are driving. We are also working with the Singapore Police Force and the Singapore Civil Defence Force when it comes to emergencies related to floodings, in case there is a need to protect and save lives. So, there is close coordination between PUB and many related agencies. On the need for financial support, I would say that actually the measures that we are putting in place really start from a very basic design. So, when it comes to developers, for example, we are expecting them to start putting in some of these budgets so that they can plan the infrastructure, the protection measures, as and when they are planning. This will be reflected in the land price and also in the development costs that they will be including in their development plans. As to businesses as well as in the residential areas, I think PUB works very closely with them. In fact, over the years, we have been reducing the flood-prone areas significantly.”
“We will review the plans, as I have said earlier on, for the next cycle of 2026 to 2030. We are in the process of doing that. But the point that I like to make is that, even as we are able to foresee a greater occurrence of such extreme weather events, sometimes it is just not financially wise for us to prepare for the extreme events, because that will mean dedicating a lot of land, a lot of financial resources to protect us for those events that may not occur so regularly or in places where it does not occur regularly. It is still the same message, that while the Government will look at improving our infrastructure, we need community, we need businesses, we need owners to also undertake protection measures to protect themselves, protect their properties and protect their families.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for these questions. I think they are very thoughtful. Indeed, I think we need to look at both short-term as well as long-term measures. I think in the short run, we would like to see how we can prepare the public including residents, better, faster and give them more effective means to protect themselves, including the availability of more devices to protect their own property. Whether the pumps will be really effective in the case of Jalan Seaview, that may be doubtful because we are talking about the coincidence of both intense rain and high tide. So, it is difficult to pump something out if the tide is against you. What we really need to do is, where we can, for example, in Marina Barrage, we will start pumping ahead of time, prepare as much as we can, but still, more importantly is to get the local community, especially in the flood prone areas to be prepared themselves. So, awareness, public engagement, early warning, advising public to sign up to PUB's channel for information. We are also working with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to make some of these warning ahead of time more effectively through more platforms. These are all works in progress. And in the longer term, we will want to review our flood drainage system, in tandem with our coastal protection system, because these are two sides of the same coin. In intense rain with high tide, as we have seen recently, we need to manage both together, and that is the reason why PUB is now the coastal protection agency. It is really to bring consideration, at the same time, plan for it and be prepared to invest in effective infrastructure that we have said that we are going to invest in significantly.”
“It is, hence, more effective to build up flood resilience at a systems level, where building owners, developers, as well as the wider community, all play their part alongside the Government. To this end, PUB works closely with building owners and developers on measures that have to be taken at the individual development level to strengthen flood resilience. PUB's Code of Practice on Surface Water Drainage provides requirements on minimum platform and crest levels for buildings and flood protection measures that building owners and developers must implement to protect their premises. Amendments to the Sewerage and Drainage Act were passed in November 2024 to ensure that owners and developers continue to operate and maintain the flood protection measures in their premises properly after implementation. PUB also proactively engages the community to better prepare for and respond to flood incidents. PUB works with the National Environment Agency (NEA) to forecast intense rainfall and issue early warning of potential floods to better prepare the public ahead of flood incidents. PUB launched its flood preparedness campaign "Get Flood-Wise" in November 2024 and worked with partners, such as Grab and BlueSG, to share flood readiness tips with drivers and commuters. Managing flood risks is a collective effort between the Government, businesses and the public. I encourage everyone to play their part in enhancing Singapore's flood resilience.”
“We encourage developments in low-lying areas, including at Jalan Seaview, to put in place their own flood protection measures, such as deploying flood protection devices. To help residents and businesses, PUB has been issuing flood protection devices, such as flood barriers and inflatable sand bags, as part of the annual monsoon preparation and providing guidance on how to deploy these devices properly in a timely manner. Climate change will increase flood risks in Singapore due to more extreme and unpredictable rainfall. PUB adopts a multi-pronged approach to enhance Singapore's flood resilience. First, PUB continually upgrades our drainage infrastructure. The Government has made significant investments over the decades to upgrade drainage infrastructure, with about $2.5 billion spent since 2011. We have successfully reduced flood prone areas from approximately 3,200 hectares in the 1970s to less than 25 hectares today. PUB conducts regular reviews on the adequacy of the existing drainage system and considers the latest drainage design standards and climate change data. There are 19 ongoing drainage upgrading works, with six more projects slated to commence in 2025. We will spend about $150 million on these projects in FY2025. We are currently reviewing the drainage infrastructure plan for the next review cycle of FY2026 to 2030. That said, it is neither practical nor prudent in land-scarce Singapore to keep building more drains or expanding our drainage infrastructure. Doing so, would require significant land and financial resources, which would then not be available for other important uses. To put things into perspective, flooding in Singapore is localised and typically subsides within an hour.”
“In January this year, Singapore and the region experienced two monsoon surges which brought about prolonged rain. The first monsoon surge lasted four days from 10 January to 13 January, and the second monsoon surge lasted three days from 17 January to 19 January. From 10 January to 11 January, a total of 255.2 millimetres of rainfall was recorded at Changi, which is more than our average monthly rainfall of 222.4 millimetres in January. Over these two monsoon surges in January 2025, there was one incident of flooding, which occurred at Jalan Seaview. Jalan Seaview is a low-lying area subject to tidal influence. Since the 1980s, a tidal gate has been put in place in the outlet drain downstream of Jalan Seaview, to help mitigate tidal flood risks for this area. On 10 January, heavy rain coincided with high tide and this led to the flooding at the side road bend, a stretch of about 50 metres, of Jalan Seaview. The flooding on the road was about 0.3 metres and lasted close to three hours due to the high tide. The house next to this road experienced flooding within its car porch area. Based on the Public Utilities Board's (PUB's) records, in the past five years, this is the only stretch of road along Jalan Seaview that has experienced flooding. While PUB had upgraded the roadside drains at Jalan Seaview in 2014 to increase their drainage capacity, some areas in the vicinity of Jalan Seaview are still susceptible to flooding as the road levels are marginally above the high tide level. The longer-term plan is to reclaim and build "Long Island" which will protect the East Coast area, including Jalan Seaview, from rising sea levels and tidal floods. Agencies have initiated technical studies and are engaging the public and stakeholders to shape the plans for "Long Island".”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take two oral Parliamentary Questions (PQs), Question Nos 5 and 6 in the Order Paper together? In addition, I will address one written PQ filed by Miss Rachel Ong for the 4 February 2025 Sitting. These three PQs relate to the recent monsoon surges and drainage improvement efforts and with your permission, I will respond to these PQs together.”
“In addition, we will continue to strengthen partnerships with communities to develop localised solutions to address high-rise littering and urge residents to be considerate and not commit such acts, which is an anti-social behaviour that threatens public safety and hygiene.”
“In instances where camera deployment is not feasible, NEA will step up educational outreach to households in the affected stack, conduct stakeouts and initiate further investigations if there are eyewitness accounts. Members of the public who are aware of their neighbours' littering behaviour may also submit video evidence of high-rise littering acts to NEA for investigation. Depending on factors, such as the weather, duration of surveillance and visibility of the camera to would-be offenders, the detection rate of high-rise littering acts could vary and result in fluctuations in the yearly enforcement rate. From 2021 to 2023, such acts were detected in about 30% of surveillance cameras deployment resulting in over 3,300 enforcement actions. In the coming year, NEA will be introducing new operational measures to improve the detection rate. These include the use of cameras with higher resolution and longer deployment durations. Cameras will also be deployed in more covert locations to better detect high-rise littering activities. To increase public awareness and deterrence against high-rise littering, NEA also collaborates with TCs to deploy standees indicating ongoing surveillance or localised statistics on offenders caught and display posters indicating the number of incidents of high-rise littering caught for the affected column. My Ministry will continue to monitor and explore measures to enhance detection and enforcement capabilities for high-rise littering, including keeping pace with technological advancements in video analytics and artificial intelligence and monitoring the suitability and safety of technologies, such as drone flights, for high-rise littering surveillance.”
“My response to Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Ms Foo Mee Har and Ms Yeo Wan Ling's Parliamentary Questions will also address the related Parliamentary Question on high-rise littering filed by Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui on 7 January 2025. [Please refer to "Deployment of Surveillance Cameras to Catch High-rise Littering and Trial of Other Technologies to Supplement Present Efforts", Official Report, 08 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 149, Oral Answers to Questions section; and "Developing New Technical Solutions to Detect High-rise Littering", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.] In addressing high-rise littering, the National Environment Agency (NEA) undertakes various measures to educate the public, detect instances of high-rise littering and enforce against offenders. In 2022 and 2023, NEA received an average of about 27,100 high-rise littering feedback per year. This was significantly lower than the annual average of about 33,500 feedback received in 2020 and 2021. When there is such feedback at a block of the Housing and Development Board flats, NEA will work with the Town Council (TC) to first issue advisories to residents in the block. Should the high-rise littering issue persist, NEA will investigate to determine the likely offending unit and deploy surveillance cameras with video analytics to capture acts of high-rise littering and support enforcement efforts. Between 2021 and 2023, NEA deployed cameras in about 97.1% of 7,400 persistent high-rise littering cases. The remainder were assessed as unsuitable due to the design and layout of the blocks and the lack of appropriate vantage points.”
“For example, to decarbonise our power grid, we are moving forward with ambitious solar deployment plans and are also working with partner countries to import six gigawatt of low-carbon electricity by 2035. Incentives, such as the Resource Efficiency Grant for Emissions and legislation such as the Energy Conservation Act have been introduced to improve energy efficiency across the economy. We have also implemented a carbon tax since 2019 to provide an economy-wide signal for businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint in line with our national climate goals. For Singapore to achieve our climate goals, it is also important that every individual plays his or her part. Singapore will continue to push ahead with the Singapore Green Plan 2030, which aims to galvanise every individual to contribute to our national agenda on sustainable development. Beyond that, we have also introduced initiatives, like the Climate Friendly Household Programme, to encourage individuals to take climate actions and be more efficient in their energy and water consumption.”
“In 2022, Singapore announced our commitment to reduce emissions to around 60 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2030 after peaking emissions earlier and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. As stated in our first Biennial Transparency Report (BTR1) submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in November 2024, Singapore is on track to meet our 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution and remains committed to achieving our 2050 net zero target, despite our limited potential for alternative energy sources. From 2014 to 2022, Singapore's per capita emissions increased by around 1% per annum. However, our carbon intensity, that is, carbon dioxide emissions per dollar gross domestic product (GDP) purchasing power parity (PPP) remains among the lowest globally1. Our BTR provides information on our greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, including emissions from the agriculture sector. Since 2000, the GHG emissions for local agricultural activities has contributed around 0.01% of Singapore's annual GHG inventory. In the latest reporting year of 2022, this translates to 0.008 MtCO2e. Singapore does not track emissions from imported goods, including imported food products, as such emissions occur outside of Singapore's national territories and are excluded from our national GHG inventory in accordance with UNFCCC reporting requirements. Singapore takes a comprehensive approach towards climate action, to enable us to meet our international climate commitments while achieving sustainable growth. We are advancing mitigation efforts across all sectors of the economy, with particular focus on major sources of emissions, such as industry, power generation and land transport.”
“The Public Utilities Board (PUB) received about 600 feedback per year in the past two years regarding damaged or choked public drains, most of which were minor that did not impact the performance of drains to convey stormwater. To maintain Singapore's vast network of drains, canals and waterways, PUB works closely with the National Environment Agency (NEA) on regular cleaning and structural maintenance. PUB regularly inspects and upkeeps public drains. Drains that show structural defects will be repaired promptly, with repair works prioritised based on the drain conditions. Drains beyond repair will be scheduled for upgrading through PUB's drainage improvement programme, with interim repairs promptly carried out to ensure their performance. NEA undertakes the regular cleaning of public drains. Debris, litter and shed leaves in the drains are removed promptly to allow stormwater to flow freely and to prevent pockets of stagnant water from forming. This prevents drains from becoming potential mosquito breeding habitats. Drains are also flushed periodically to remove silt. PUB and NEA will continue to keep our drains, canals and waterways clean and in good condition to protect Singaporeans from floods and vector-borne diseases, like dengue.”
“Operators must also display their SFA licence and contact number on the machines to facilitate the provision of feedback by the public. SFA conducts checks on food vending machines, to ensure food safety. This includes ensuring that the machines are clean, pest-free and that the storage temperatures within the machines are in accordance with the regulations. SFA will investigate if there are suspected food safety lapses and, where necessary, take the relevant enforcement actions. Mr Speaker, Singapore’s journey for food safety and security has been one of adaptability and agility. While we have come far in this journey, the food industry has and will continue to see new opportunities, and face new challenges. The Bill will strengthen food safety to better protect consumers; reduce regulatory complexity, thereby increasing ease of doing business, reducing compliance cost, and supporting industry innovation and growth; and enable effective responses to food safety and security threats. Ultimately, safe and secure food is existential; it is essential to the normal functioning of our daily lives, our economy, our security, our entire society. This is the significance of this Bill. I call on all Members of the House to give your support to this Bill. 9.38 pm”
“While the Bill puts in place the penalty framework, ultimately the actual penalty for each offence will be decided by the Courts. To avoid being overly punitive, lapses of less serious nature, such as a breach of licensing conditions, will be decriminalised. However, such transgressions will still be subjected to penalties under SFA’s licensing framework. Specifically, any of these defaults will form a ground for regulatory action by SFA, which can range from suspension or cancelling the licence to imposing a financial penalty of up to $5,000 per contravention. On the expanded scope of directions, Ms Jean See asked about the type of checks that the authorised officer or food inspector might undertake to determine if a food vending machine is in unclean or unsanitary condition as to make any food from the machine unsafe or unsuitable, or likely to be unsafe or unsuitable. She also suggested for SFA to consider requiring vending machine operators to display on the machine the most recent date the machine was cleaned, and for highly perishable food, the “sell-by” date. SFA takes a risk-based approach to regulating food vending machines. Operators of food vending machines are required to hold SFA licences if the machines have in-machine food processing functions, or sell raw meat or seafood, given the higher potential food safety risks involved. Under the Bill, licensed operators will be required to put in place a Food Control Plan, which would include regular cleaning and maintenance regime to ensure the machine is kept in clean, hygienic, and good working condition. Companies may wish to adopt Ms See’s suggestion of displaying the most recent date of cleaning, to better track the implementation of their cleaning regime.”
“SFA works closely with sectoral agencies, such as the Early Childhood Development Agency for preschools and MOH for nursing homes, on guidelines and regulations to protect these communities from food safety incidents. This includes the sharing of good food handling practices and food safety management systems such as the design and management of in-house kitchens to uphold food safety practices. SFA also conducts training for sectoral agencies, to strengthen their capabilities in assessing food safety risks associated with food production and preparation on their premises. SFA requires food businesses to ensure that their employees have adequate capability in ensuring food safety. All employees who handle food must be trained and have passed the Workforce Skills Qualifications Food Safety Course Level 1 before carrying on work as a food worker. Food businesses with higher food safety risk, such as caterers, are also required to appoint Food Hygiene Officers to assist the food businesses in establishing and maintaining proper food safety system. Mr Don Wee asked how we are calibrating the penalties to ensure that they are neither excessively punitive for small businesses nor too lenient to deter large offenders. The penalties are intended to deter egregious behaviour to safeguard public health. Hence, the penalty framework is organised around severity and threat to public health, culpability of offences and circumstances of the breach, instead of size of business. The maximum fine quantum of $50,000 takes reference from the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, which today already provides for a maximum fine of $50,000 for offenders who sell meat or fish that is unfit for human consumption.”
“SFA will monitor the situation and review our enforcement periodically. Mr Don Wee expressed concerns about the mass food poisoning cases last year and asked about the preventive measures the Bill will introduce to assure consumers on food safety. Mr Dennis Tan asked whether there are other efforts to promote food safety besides penalties and licence suspensions. SFA adopts a science-based risk management approach to safeguard food safety, consistent with international standards. As part of SFA’s import control regime, SFA accredits import sources for higher-risk food such as meat and eggs. SFA then inspects, samples, and tests food imports based on their risk profile, and may require the treatment, destruction or re-export of food that fails checks. The Bill will provide powers for SFA to establish inspection schemes, to identify food and other controlled items which require prior clearance for import, what is needed for this clearance, and the different levels of inspection for specific hazards. At the retail level, food businesses such as restaurants and caterers must ensure cleanliness of their premises and the safe preparation and handling of food. SFA may impose certain requirements on licensed food businesses, such as on the design and cleanliness of the premises or equipment. Similarly, taking a risk-based approach, SFA will conduct inspections based on risk profiles of the premises and food sold, and track records of past infringements. The Bill will also require food businesses to put in place upstream preventive measures through Food Control Plans.”
“SFA will continue to engage food donor bodies to raise awareness on safe food donation-related matters, including proper understanding of date labels on food products. Mr Don Wee asked about the measures to prevent the entry of contaminated or non-compliant food products under the private consumption limit. SFA takes a risk-based approach to our food safety regime. The allowable limit under the private consumption takes into consideration the small quantity which limits its distribution potential and food safety risks. However, we recognise that some food types, such as game meat or animal blood products, could pose greater risk to consumers and public health. Such food are of higher regulatory concern and are not allowed to be brought in under the private consumption limit. We encourage consumers to exercise caution when purchasing food from overseas. SFA will raise public awareness on the potential food safety risks associated with consuming overseas food products brought in by travellers. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the Bill permits the selling, gifting or donation of excess food brought in under the private consumption allowance and whether SFA has the capability to enforce the prohibition of selling the food brought in under private consumption. He also suggested collaborations with e-commerce platforms to monitor and regulate transactions. Clause 160 makes clear that any food brought in under the private consumption allowance cannot be sold or donated. Gifting of such food is also restricted to that carried out as part of a personal relationship, as distribution beyond which, such as through sale or donation channels, will increase the food safety risks. Consumers should exercise discretion and only purchase what they can reasonably consume.”
“Retailers should contribute to reducing food waste in a safe manner, by ensuring surplus food given away is not "outdated". Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how clause 144 of the Bill interacts with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and whether volunteers and donors will continue to be shielded from penalties for unintended oversights. Mr Yip also noted the penalties in clauses 29 to 31 and 144 to 146, and asked if exemptions and safeguards will be in place to protect well-intentioned individuals contributing to food security. This Bill and the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act are complementary. The purpose of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act is to offer food donors protection from criminal liability, such as under clauses 144, 145 and 146, and civil liability, which would in turn encourage donation of surplus food and reduce food waste. However, the protection cannot be absolute as the health of the consumers, similarly, needs protection. So, section 4 of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act outlined the conditions that donors have to comply with. Clause 164 explicitly states that the defences in the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act are available against offences in the Bill. To better support food donors, SFA will be publishing an updated Guidelines for Food Donation on its website later this month. The guidelines will contain a list of food safety practices to help food donors ensure that their donated food is safe for consumption. For example, maintaining a process to check that the food they are donating is safe and suitable for consumption; and adhering to safe food handling requirements, such as temperature control and hygienic food handling practices.”
“Speaker, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon has addressed some of the Members' clarifications. Let me respond to the remaining questions. Mr Louis Ng asked whether the supply of food that is past its labelled date is permissible under the Bill in any circumstances. An example cited was a retailer permitting an individual to take expired food for their individual consumption. Food manufacturers locally and overseas use a variety of date marks on their packaging. This includes date marks, such as "Use by" and "Best Before", which are used by different jurisdictions and are internationally accepted terms under the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. Under the Bill, "outdated" food will be considered "unsuitable" food, the supply of which will not be permitted. The meaning of what constitutes "outdated" relates to date marking requirements and will be prescribed by Subsidiary Legislation. To guide the future Subsidiary Legislation on date marking, SFA is conducting a study on the feasibility and implications of differentiating the various date marks, based on their relevance to food safety risks. This would allow SFA to prescribe only date marks indicating that the food may have become unsafe for consumption as "outdated". SFA targets to complete the study before the relevant Part of the Bill comes into force. To Mr Louis Ng's question about the Government's efforts on food waste reduction, this is not within the scope of the Bill, but I will briefly address the question, with Speaker's permission. The preferred way to manage food waste is upstream, before the food becomes close to being "unsuitable" or "unsafe". It is in the interest of the businesses to optimise the turnover of their inventory and to minimise food waste and unsold food.”
“Yes, I started with that, Mr Speaker. I said that I move, “That the Bill be now read a second time.””
“Yes, I would like Senior Minister of State Koh to continue with his speech, as I had alluded to earlier. Thank you, Mr Speaker.”
“By simplifying and bringing about consistency, the Bill reduces regulatory complexity for businesses, which in turn reduces compliance costs. The food security requirements which Senior Minister of State Koh will elaborate on shortly, will also help increase businesses’ resilience and ensure operational continuity. As we have consolidated all food related functions under a single agency, SFA, there is a need to do the same with our legislation. Mr Speaker, the proposed legislative changes build on the strong foundation our predecessors have left us and enable us to address anticipated future challenges to food safety and security.”
“These appointed officers will be vested with monitoring and investigating powers, which are detailed in Part 13 of the Bill. The Bill also empowers SFA to appoint "outsourced enforcement officers" to supplement its resources in carrying out selected functions. The scope of powers conferred to outsourced enforcement officers will be much more limited, as they are not public service officers. Their powers are outlined in clause 286. All outsourced enforcement officers, authorised officers, food inspectors and food security officers, will be issued identification cards that they must carry at all times when exercising their powers conferred under the Bill. Existing powers of arrest, which are provided in current legislation, will no longer be provided in the Bill. Egregious cases involving fatalities or intentional contamination of food, will be referred to the Police for investigation. Under Part 12 of the Bill, parties aggrieved by discretionary decisions made by SFA or the DG (FA) can appeal to the Minister, as an independent authority, to reassess the merits of the decision taken. Finally, the third objective of the Bill is to strengthen our food supply resilience. Two food security measures that the Bill will allow us to implement are: one, a Minimum Stockholding Requirement (MSR) for entities along the food supply chain to hold stocks of essential food items or agri-food production inputs; and two, a Farm Management Plan by local farms to ensure the sustainable scale up of local production. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will elaborate on these measures in his speech. Before I conclude, even as this Bill updates our food safety regime and strengthens our food security, many of the requirements will not be new to businesses and are already implemented today.”
“There will also be a new direction in clause 130 aimed at the food worker lapses in a licensed food business environment. Sometimes, the food safety lapse is due entirely to an individual, for example, failure of a food worker to maintain personal hygiene. Clause 130 will support a more targeted response to require corrective actions by the individual, instead of affecting the entire licensable food business and every other food worker of the business in every instance. To manage contamination from food vending machines and equipment used in the food production process, directions may be issued under clause 124 to ensure cleanliness and production of safe and suitable food. Such directions will be issued to the owner of a food vending machine or equipment. Lastly, clause 134 extends directions on the maintenance of premises, equipment and dealing with source of contamination to animal feed production. As with current day practice, the failure to comply with Part 7 directions constitute an offence. SFA works closely with other agencies as one Government, in the interest of protecting public health against food threats. For instance, officers from the Ministry of Health (MOH) are appointed powers to enforce against non-compliances with nutrition and health claims. Appointed officers from the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapore (MUIS) may also carry out monitoring and enforcement on halal labelling. The Bill will allow SFA to continue with the current practice, where SFA officers or officers of any other Singapore public sector agency may be appointed as food inspectors. The Bill will also provide powers for the Minister to appoint food security officers from among SFA officers or officers of any other Singapore public sector agency.”
“The disqualification applies only to the activity or trade that the revocation of licence had covered. Disqualified persons will not be allowed to be an executive staff in the same type of licensable food businesses at any premises, where they may be placed in charge of making decisions on the day-to-day operations. By clause 347, a similar disqualification framework is introduced to Part 4 of the EPHA, in connection with licensing of temporary fair operators. While operators of temporary fairs will continue to be licensed under the EPHA, food stalls in temporary fairs will be licensed under the Food Safety and Security Act when passed. Introducing the disqualification framework in the EPHA ensures that the same treatment will apply to both temporary fair operators and food stall operators. Next, on changes concerning food safety. In 2017, special powers in the SOFA were conferred on the Director-General for Food Administration, or the DG (FA), to issue directions. This power has proven essential in securing immediate corrective actions or initiating recalls in the event of a food safety incident. Our priority is to protect consumers and to prevent or mitigate any serious danger to public health. Part 7 of the Bill retains these powers. Four new types of directions are introduced to enable more effective and faster response to food safety threats. Under clause 137, the DG (FA) will be able to issue directions to deal with threats to primary production or the health of food producing animals to mitigate or prevent a threat to the food supply here. This will include directions to implement measures to prevent spread of diseases on farms, such as culling or movement control over animals.”
“The Bill therefore organises the offences and their corresponding maximum penalties based on severity and threat to public health, culpability of offences and the circumstances of when, where and how the breach occurred. For example, the more severe the offence, the higher the penalty. A more severe breach, such as the supply of unsafe food will attract a higher criminal punishment than a less severe breach, such as failing to keep records. There will also be differentiation between individuals and entities, and between first time offenders and repeat offenders. Part 14 of the Bill introduces a framework to disqualify certain persons from holding licences. Under this framework, an ex-licensee whose food trading licence, food business licence or animal feed production licence has been revoked will be disqualified from holding the same licence for a specified period of up to three years. Today, all ex-licensees whose licences have been revoked, can reapply for the same licence immediately after conviction, even though they may still be unfit or unsuitable to carry on a food business. The disqualification framework will address this. Disqualification will only apply to ex-licensees who had their licences revoked. Grounds of licence revocations include infringements that had posed severe risks to food safety or are in the public interest, non-compliance with Part 7 directions and fraud. The actual disqualification period will be determined by SFA after considering factors, such as compliance history of the ex-licensee and the severity of the violation. The maximum disqualification period is three years. The intent is to provide sufficient deterrence while avoiding being overly punitive.”
“Doing so will avoid criminalising persons for infringements that do not lead to direct harm or danger to people. This change frees up the resources of the court system and enables SFA as a regulator to move faster by meting out regulatory sanctions directly. For instance, where breaches in import licence conditions are administrative in nature, these will now no longer warrant prosecution in Court. However, SFA will still be able to take regulatory actions such as financial penalties and licence suspensions against such breaches. Two, on standardising the penalty framework for offences, including aligning maximum penalties. Currently, similar offences under the different Acts attract different penalties. For instance, under the WMFA, an offender who sells meat or fish that is unfit for human consumption faces a maximum fine of $50,000, whereas he or she would face a fine of up to $5,000 under the SOFA if it was some other food. The Bill seeks to align the maximum penalty for the most serious food safety-related offences to $50,000 for a first-time corporate offender and for a first-time individual offender, to $25,000 or a jail term of up to 24 months or both. This considers the existing penalties in the WMFA, which are the highest among existing food legislation and the Courts today have been meting out sentences close to the maximum fines for offences under the older food laws, which are much lower. The actual quantum for each case remains to be a decision for the Courts to make on convicting the offender. Further, current penalties may sometimes not commensurate with the severity of the impact from the offence committed or the culpability of the offenders as these offences had been enacted some time back.”
“Part 8 of the Bill will provide a common set of offences by rationalising the existing offences under the different Acts today. For example, unlike the SOFA that makes selling unsafe or unsuitable food an offence, the current Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, or WMFA, covers meat and fish products only and not food in general; while the Environmental Public Health Act, or EPHA, covers only the retail setting. Under the Bill, all food will be covered under the new offences of supplying unsafe or unsuitable food, regardless of the commodity type or business activity. Existing offences related to food handling processes are overly specific and prescriptive. Yet, given the varied operating conditions of food businesses, it is ineffective for the law to specify every possible practice that might lead to unsafe food. We cannot be constantly amending the law to deal with a new method of handling or production. Clause 9 of the Bill therefore defines "food handling" more comprehensively to cover activities from preparation, manufacturing, storing, packing and transporting up to the point of delivery to consumers. The Bill outlines the offences in clauses 144, 145, 148 and 149. This broader coverage seeks to ensure accountability of the food handlers who may come into contact with the food in the entire process. It will also provide SFA with the flexibility to adapt to new food safety risks, as the industry evolves and new practices emerge. This will place greater emphasis on having good food control processes and afford better protection to the public. As part of rationalisation, some offences under existing laws are decriminalised. This is replaced with regulatory sanctions which are more immediate and effective in deterring unacceptable conduct by licensees.”
“This will ensure consistency across different food commodities and reduce regulatory complexity for food traders importing or exporting different food types. An exception is made by the Bill for the import of food for private consumption. Singaporeans often bring home food from overseas to enjoy them here or to share with friends and family. The Bill will set out the maximum quantity of food that individuals can bring in from overseas without the need for a licence and permit, provided none of the food is for use in the food business or for donation. This Bill calls this the private consumption exception. The Bill provides a single rule to allow each individual to bring in a total of not more than 15 kilogrammes of various categories of food, including a clutch of up to 30 eggs. Given such food is meant for consumption by the individual and family and not for wider distribution, the food safety risk to the public is significantly lower. The private consumption exception will exclude food of higher regulatory concern, such as game meat or animal blood products. The second thrust of the Bill is to strengthen our food safety regime to better protect consumers, support industry development and keep pace with emerging trends. Singaporeans rely a lot on food businesses for our daily meals – many of us either eat out or order food delivery. Strong regulation of food safety laws is therefore necessary to ensure public health and build public confidence in our food businesses. We are strengthening our regulatory regime in two ways by: (a) providing for more comprehensive offences that apply along all steps of the food supply chain, regardless of commodity type and business activity; and (b) standardising the penalty frameworks including aligning maximum penalties.”
“However, these concerns have been addressed with the passing of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act last year. A food donor has legal immunity if the food donor can meet the four conditions in section 5 of Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. Clause 164 in the Bill makes this clear. SFA has sought feedback from food charities and distribution groups on its guidelines for food donation and distribution. The updated guidelines will be published later this month. We hope these will provide more detailed guidance on safe food handling practices. Two, current regulatory approaches are uneven across different groups of food industry participants and different food types. Some of our legislation regulates by types of food, while others regulated by types of activities. The Bill will standardise the approach. Part 3 of the Bill provides for a two-tier regulatory regime for trading of food-related commodities. For example, for food imports, the first tier is the licensing of the food trader to ensure that they have the required systems and processes in the course of business to source safe and suitable food, ensure the integrity of items imported and to recall food if necessary. The second tier is the requirement of a permit for every food consignment imported. This second regulatory tool is necessary for food-specific safety requirements to be applied at the consignment level. For example, when an animal disease outbreak excludes specific sources from supplying to Singapore. Today, most food traders are subjected to some form of a two-tier regime. The Bill will standardise and apply this two-tier approach to all kinds of food.”
“Minister of State for Health Rahayu Mahzam will elaborate on provisions related to health promotion. Let me start with consolidating and rationalising food-related legislation. The Bill will become the main legislation that provides a regulatory framework covering food sector in Singapore, from farm to fork. The Government recognises that a safe and secure food supply needs to be underpinned by streamlined regulations that facilitate compliance and business innovation. This is not only vital for a healthy population and workforce, but also for a strong economy and continued local businesses' access to international markets. This Bill will consolidate existing legislation in different Acts, standardise definitions across the industry, rationalise requirements across food types and establish common penalty frameworks. This provides a common operating context, reduces complexity and, in turn, supports improved compliance with legal requirements directed at protecting public health. I will elaborate on two elements in this aspect. One, the Bill will cover the distribution of food in all forms, whether through sale, movement of food items or given for free. This is an expansion of the current scope, which mainly covers sale. This expansion of scope is important as food safety risks exist not just in the food that is sold. Food that is given for free can also be unsafe and it is important to provide protection to recipients of donated food. Accordingly, offences currently in the Sale of Food Act (SOFA) and other Acts that apply to the sale of food will be replaced by part 8 of the Bill, covering all manner of food distribution, including giving food for free. There may be some concerns among charities, food donors and entities which support their food distribution efforts.”
“Supply chain disruptions arising from many other factors, extreme weather events, disease outbreaks and trade restrictions, also affected our food supply on several occasions. With climate change, rising biosecurity risks and geopolitical tensions, the risk of food disruptions is expected to increase. Our policy responses have helped us ride out these storms. However, our policies must be supported by our laws to enable SFA to achieve its mission of ensuring and securing a supply of safe food in Singapore for Singaporeans. This Bill is timely to bring about several attributes in our laws: simplified, combining elements of the law now scattered in nine Acts to one, reducing complexity and increasing ease of doing business; consistent, bringing several laws that evolved over decades at different times to set common definitions, regulatory regime and penalty framework, thus reducing compliance cost for businesses and increasing the effectiveness of our regulations; effective, enabling SFA to respond quickly and effectively against threats to food safety and security; future-ready, updating our regulations to be relevant for the future, enabling technology and industry practices to innovate and evolve, helping our business grow. There are three main thrusts in the Bill: first, to consolidate and rationalise food-related legislation; second, to update our food safety regime to better protect consumers, support industry development and prepare for emerging trends; and third, to strengthen our food supply resilience. I will introduce the key legislative changes to the food safety regime. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will elaborate on the details of the food safety regime and introduce the food security provisions under the Bill.”
“Over the decades, many agencies have been involved in the regulation and development of the food sector: the Primary Production Department, I am sure that sounds familiar to some of us here, was involved in regulating our local farming sector; the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) regulated food safety from importation, local production and manufacturing; the National Environment Agency (NEA) regulated food hygiene in the retail sector; the Health Sciences Authority supported food safety by rendering testing expertise to regulatory agencies; and Enterprise Singapore administered the Rice Stockpile Scheme to ensure adequate supplies of rice, mitigating the impact of any unforeseen disruptions. For more effective governance of food safety and security, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) was formed in 2019 to consolidate these functions under one agency. This Bill serves to consolidate the relevant food-related laws that were enacted at different points in our history. A new, single food Bill is essential as Singapore faces evolving new and rising food risks. Our global food supply network is expanding with our push for market diversification. Consumers are demanding more and new types of foods. Food safety hazards can arise at any point along the agri-food supply chain. With advancements in science and technology, we have seen the emergence of new food production methods, inputs, such as pesticides, and novel food products. Singapore has also faced various food supply challenges in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic saw the impact of supply disruptions when we experienced the effects of lockdowns and restrictions on cross-border movements.”
“Mr Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Through you, Sir, I would like to wish everyone in the Parliament House, that is Mr Speaker and your Team, the Members here, visitors, representatives from the food sector who are here to support the Bill, thank you very much; translators, staff, ushers, I wish everybody a very happy new year. Soon, many of us will be celebrating the Lunar New Year, another time for family gathering and feasting. Will you be getting a caterer? Have you booked a restaurant for the reunion dinner? What new cookies and New Year goodies are there in the market? Where can we get fresh meat at good prices for our steamboat? I am sure these are plausibly some of the usual questions that are floating around at this time. This year, I would like to invite Members to spare some thoughts on the safety and supply of these festive foods. Where do they come from? How are they prepared, handled, made? Are they safe to consume? Often, in Singapore, we take our safe and secure food supply for granted. This is the result of many decades of hard work by stakeholders and the trust that they have help built in the minds of the consumers. Stakeholders, including Government agencies that have implemented relevant and effective policies, regularly reviewed and updated; businesses who have extended their supply network, instituted good food management practices and supported the growth of our food industry; and consumers who played an active role in ensuring food safety and supported our diversification policy and local food businesses.”
“As the Coral Princess was due to arrive at a United States (US) port1, the outbreak investigation was undertaken by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Based on the CDC's report2, there was no link between the source of contamination to supplies loaded in Singapore.”
“Under the Temporary Occupation Licence and lease conditions, fish farmers who exit the industry will need to reinstate their sites to the original conditions. They have to obtain relevant regulatory approvals prior to demolition and engage surveyors to carry out sonar scans of the environment. The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) assigns farms with account managers who will provide guidance on the process and the requirements that farms need to adhere to. SFA also conducts physical checks and will investigate if there are signs of unauthorised dumping of marine debris. If a licensee is found culpable, SFA will take enforcement actions, which may include pursuing liquidated damages and recovering costs incurred by the Government to complete the reinstatement.”