Lim Swee Say
Singapore
“The number of reports received via the Snap@MOM app, number of valid reports and number of companies issued with enforcement actions between 2015 and 2017 are shown in the table below: All valid reports have resulted in warnings or enforcement actions.”
“In the case of students from ITE, polytechnics or autonomous universities, employers do not need to contribute CPF if the student is employed by them for training that is approved by their institutions.”
“Together with our tripartite partners at the national and sector levels, we have to do our best to transform across all sectors, for our economy to transform and grow, pervasively, as One Singapore Unlimited.”
“Between April and December 2017, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) and the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) concluded 3,750 employee salary claims where the employer was ordered to make payment to the worker. Salaries were fully recovered in about 92% of these orders. The remaining claims involved 139 employers.”
“The number of employed residents aged 62 and over, and 67 and over has increased over the last five years (see Table 1 below). Of all employed residents aged 67 and over in 2017, 64% were males; 80% held secondary and below qualifications, 9% had post-secondary qualifications, while 11% were tertiary-educated; 52% of this group of older w…”
“The proportion of full-time resident employees earning below $2,000 who received bonuses, including the Annual Wage Supplement, has remained stable at about 50% over the last decade. Employers and unions share the flexibility in structuring staff remuneration together under our Flexible and Performance Based wage systems.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,231 lines we hold for Lim Swee Say, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 25.
“Sir, Mr Steve Chia basically asked if NEWater is safe and why did the international expert panel recommend the indirect potable use and not direct potable use. Sir, the potable use of reclaimed water is not new. It has happened in some places in USA, for example, since 1972. So it is almost 30 years by now. In USA today, the consumption of reclaimed water has to satisfy two requirements. Firstly, the reclaimed water must be of potable standard, meaning it must be able to meet all international standards for potable use. It means the reclaimed water must be good enough for potable use on its own. Secondly, having established that this reclaimed water has met the potable standard, in USA today, they have stipulated that this reclaimed water should go through a process of naturalisation, meaning it is put into the reservoir, above ground or underground, and then treated again through conventional method before it is used for consumption. Sir, in other words, what we are saying is that even though the NEWater plant in Singapore - using the words of the international experts - is the best of the best in the world today, even though the quality of NEWater is of the highest standard they know of, we still feel that, just to be prudent and cautious, we should follow established international practices, which is to let the reclaimed water go through a process of naturalisation in the reservoir before we treat it again for indirect potable use.”
“We want to be so sure and safe that, even though all the tests needed have concluded clearly that NEWater is safe to drink, we want to make sure that, on an on-going basis, we will continue to monitor NEWater, just to be very safe. In case something unknown happens, at least we are in there to monitor the development and, if need be, take the necessary measures. Let me assure this House that the safe potable use of NEWater is never in doubt. I was not at the interview. So I do not know whether Prof. Lee and Prof. Ong were either misquoted, or quoted out of context. But I leave it to the experts to respond to the article in the newspaper Today.”
“Sir, I would like to thank Ms Irene Ng for raising the question. Sir, I am aware that in today's Today newspaper, there is an article on NEWater. Reading through the article, it leaves the impression that the long-term health effect of NEWater is yet to be established. Sir, I want to point out that this is not the case. Sir, let me explain the situation in layman's terms. All over the world today, countries do introduce new sources of water supply. In every country, Singapore included, before any new source of water supply is introduced, there is an established requirement to conduct physical test, chemical test and microbiological test. The findings of these tests are complete, comprehensive and sufficient basis to establish the suitability for potable use of the new source of water supply. In the case of NEWater, over a period of two years, we had conducted thousands of tests - physical tests, chemical tests, microbiological tests - and it is clearly established beyond any doubt that NEWater is safe. However, the article in Today seems to convey the point that, since there are two animal tests still underway, therefore we have not established the long-term health effect of NEWater. This is a wrong presentation of the situation. Such animal tests are conducted all over the world, not for the purpose of introducing new sources of water supply, but for the introduction of new drugs. Sir, any company or industry that wants to introduce new drugs will have to conduct animal tests, but not for the introduction of new sources of water supply. Sir, you may then ask: if this is the case, why did PUB and NUS go ahead to conduct these two animal tests? Sir, let me put it this way. The article is right to say that we are being kiasu.”
“Sir, besides the costs of collecting raw water and processing it into treated water, PUB has to build and maintain an extensive reticulation system reaching out to every home, every factory and every building. PUB also has to invest in new collection facilities, additional production capacity and expanded delivery infrastructure to cater for future increases in demand. Let me assure this House that the aim of PUB is not only to produce enough drinking water to meet the needs of Singaporeans and Singapore, but also to keep the price of water at an affordable level to the best of its ability in a sustainable manner.”
“However, this does not mean that we are not taking full advantage of the lower cost of NEWater. In view of the ultra-pure characteristics of NEWater, more than 80% of NEWater will be used in the industry and commercial buildings directly for non-potable use. Sir, in this way, we can still enjoy the cost advantage of NEWater for the industry and commercial buildings. And yet, at the same time, we can free up more PUB water for domestic use. Mr Steve Chia asked what will be the estimated cost of water by the time we achieve self sufficiency. Sir, the cost of PUB water today is $1.17 per cubic metre plus 30% of Water Conservation Tax, giving a total price of $1.52 per cubic metre. The projection by PUB in 1997 was that we would have to increase the cost of water to $2 per cubic metre eventually, in view of the high cost of desalted water at that time. But, fortunately, with advances in water purification technology, desalted water today costs much less than what we projected five years ago. But more importantly, the introduction of NEWater has further lowered the high cost of additional supply of water in future. We therefore do not foresee the need to increase the price of water to $2 per cubic metre for some time yet. Lastly, Mr Chia asked if Singaporeans are sold treated water at S$5.32 per 1,000 gallons making it a whopping 445% markup from cost. Sir, treated water is sold to Singaporeans at $1.17 per cubic metre, or about $5.32 per thousand gallons, as stated by Mr Steve Chia. However, I am not sure how Mr Steve Chia arrived at the figure of "445% markup from cost".”
“As stated by our Prime Minister at the launch of NEWater on 21st February, there is therefore no need to renew the 1961 Water Agreement when it expires in 2011. We can also be totally self-sufficient by 2061 when the 1962 Agreement expires, if there is no new water agreement with Malaysia on mutually beneficial terms. Dr Amy Khor asked what are the targeted quantities and proportion of NEWater and desalinated water that will be produced by 2011 and 2061. Under the Singapore Green Plan 2012, our projection is that NEWater and desalted water will account for 25% of total demand over the next 10 years. And this works out to about 100 mgd out of a projected total demand of 400 mgd by the year 2012. By 2061, the quantities and proportions of NEWater and desalted water in our water supply system will depend on the overall supply and demand situations, as well as the relative costs of these two sources and that of other potential sources made possible by future advances in water purification technology. As of now, we expect the quantity of NEWater to be higher than desalted water because it is much less energy intensive and cheaper to produce. Mr Steve Chia asked for the reason for NEWater to be pumped back into the reservoirs, thus raising cost. Mr Steve Chia is right to point out that indirect potable use of NEWater will cost more than if it is consumed directly. Even though NEWater is cleaner than PUB water and meets all international standards for potable use, we have decided to go along with the recommendation of the international expert panel to consume NEWater indirectly by mixing it with reservoir water. This is to follow the established practices in the United States for more than 25 years. We see no need for Singapore to set a new precedent.”
“Thank you, Sir. Mr Steve Chia asked whether Singapore is aiming towards 100% self-sufficiency in our water resources and, if so, when will this be achieved. Sir, currently, we have two sources of water supply, namely, water from our local catchments as well as untreated water from Johor under the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. As the two agreements will expire only in 2011 and 2061 respectively, the issue of self-sufficiency does not arise until 2061. The question before us is therefore not so much one of how soon we can be self-sufficient in water supply. Rather, it is about whether we can become, firstly, more self-sufficient by 2011 when the 1961 agreement expires; and secondly, totally self-sufficient by 2061 when the 1962 agreement expires. And the answers to both these questions are: Yes, we can. Dr Amy Khor asked whether the plans to increase the local supply can be speeded up just in case there is a need for us to be totally self-sufficient. Sir, PUB has already taken steps to strengthen our local water supply system. These include expanding the local catchments, launching NEWater for direct non-potable use in the industry and commercial buildings, and indirect potable use in our domestic sector. At the same time, PUB is also introducing desalted water under a water purchase agreement with the private sector by the year 2005. Together, these three initiatives will more than make up for the supply of water from Johor under the 1961 agreement. After 2011, we will increase the amount of desalted water in our supply system now that the cost of desalted water has reached an affordable level. We will also produce more NEWater as it is not only cleaner than PUB water, but also cheaper than desalted water.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer both Question Nos. 4 and 5 together because they are inter-related?”
“We are in the early stage of developing the Park. There is still a long way to go. NEA, JTC and EDB are currently promoting several companies to set up facilities to recycle plastic, glass, cardboard, food waste, waste cooking oil and so on, in the Park. Guided by the Singapore Green Plan 2012, the development of the Eco-Recycling Park will not only help enhance our environmental sustainability, but also transform the waste recycling industry in Singapore into a regional leader. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS MISSING CHILDREN 1. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many reported cases of missing children were filed in the years 2001 and 2002; (b) what is the average age group of these missing children; and (c) what is the success rate in the police investigation.”
“Output of solid waste has increased in tandem with economic and population growth in the last three decades. Today, about 7,700 tonnes of waste are disposed of at our incineration plants and Semakau landfill daily. This represents a six-fold increase compared to 30 years ago. This trend is not sustainable. We need to minimise waste and recycle more. Last year, our recycling rate was 44%. We aim to increase it to 60% by 2012. To achieve this target, one key initiative is the setting up of the Eco-Recycling Park in Tuas through the joint effort of ENV, NEA, EDB and JTC. Besides helping to increase recycling in Singapore, the growth of the recycling industry can also serve the growing markets in Singapore as well as in the region. The Park seeks to attract high-value added activities, and transform the image of the recycling industry into one that deploys advanced technology and provides a more conducive working environment. We adopt a cluster approach in the development of the Park so that companies can enjoy greater synergies and operational efficiency. JTC offers them a 30-year lease at reasonable rental. ENV encourages them to make use of the "Innovation for Environmental Sustainability" (IES) Fund and try out new approaches in environmental management. They can also take advantage of various incentive schemes managed by EDB, IE Singapore and SPRING Singapore. The Park was launched in March 2002 and has received encouraging response. By the end of this year, companies operating in the Park will be able to offer facilities for the recovery of recyclables from industrial, commercial and domestic sectors, including paper, glass, plastic, wood and metal. The remaining non-recyclable materials are then disposed of at Tuas Incineration Plant located in the Park.”
“Sir, the answer is yes, it will be done just like the way we lay the various telecommunication cables, water pipes, the MRT tunnels and the DTSS. There is no difference. Measures will be taken to minimise inconvenience to the public. ASIA COOPERATION DIALOGUE (Singapore's position) 3. Mr R. Ravindran asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is Singapore's position on the proposal by Thailand to create an Asia Co-operation Dialogue.”
“Sir, as I have mentioned, the linking-up of the reservoirs will be done through underground pipelines and therefore there will not be any effect from the environmental or biodiversity angle. In that sense, I want to assure the House that the linking-up of the reservoirs through underground pipelines will have no adverse impact on the environment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Member is referring to PUB's plan to integrate the various reservoirs to enhance the overall yield of our local catchments. By linking up the various reservoirs, PUB will be able to balance any mismatch between the amount of rainfall collected in the catchment areas and their respective reservoir storage capacities. This linking-up is done through underground pipelines. PUB therefore does not expect any adverse environmental impact. Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Has any study been done or carried out to examine possible implications of such a project?”
“Sir, NEWater will be used in two ways. Firstly, for non-potable use in industry and the commercial sector, NEWater will be used directly. This will begin in January next year. Dr Lily Neo asked whether there is any need to adjust the PH level of NEWater. The answer is yes, because NEWater is so pure that the PH level at this moment is about 6.2 to 6.5 which is below the neutral level of 7. So what PUB will do is that NEWater, after production, will be stabilised before it is delivered to the wafer fab plants starting in January next year. The second purpose is for potable use. As I have mentioned earlier, the Experts Panel is recommending that we make use of NEWater for potable use in an indirect manner. This means pumping NEWater into the reservoir and mixing it with raw water in the reservoir. From there, it will be reprocessed again into PUB water. INTEGRATION OF MAIN RESERVOIRS 2. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for the Environment, in view of our Prime Minister mentioning the possibility of joining our three main reservoirs into one huge catchment area, has his Ministry carried out an environmental impact study whether such a project should, in fact, be carried out.”
“Sir, as I have mentioned earlier, PUB is now looking into the recommendation by the Experts Panel and PUB expects to put forward its recommendation to the Government sometime in September. Based on PUB's recommendation, the ENV will then work out the introduction plan. At this moment, I would not want to jump the gun because the next step is for PUB to study the recommendation from the Experts Panel carefully so that by the time it comes to a decision, we will be able to move forward with complete confidence.”
“As a result, the total cost of NEWater production is about half that of desalination. In other words, the introduction of NEWater actually helps us to prevent the need to increase the prices of water in the future because with this lower cost alternative, we are now able to better contain the cost of water in the future.”
“Sir, firstly, let me explain that even though dual-membrane is a two-step process, it does not necessarily lead to higher cost. Let me explain. With reverse osmosis, we are going to achieve the highest quality of water. What this means is that before the water goes through reverse osmosis, it has to go through a stage of preparation first. The whole purpose of micro-filtration or ultra-filtration used in the first step of membrane application is to filter out bigger size impurities, for example, bacteria. By the time it comes to reverse osmosis, the process will be filtering out, for example, viruses which are much smaller than bacteria, as well as estrogenic compounds which are again much smaller than viruses and bacteria. Basically, the whole process is to remove impurities in a two-stage approach. In this way, not only will we be able to achieve higher quality water but, at the same time, we will be able to optimise the cost performance of dual membrane. On the whole, it will lead to better cost optimisation. Secondly, Mdm Ho asked who will bear the additional cost. Sir, I want to emphasise that the introduction of NEWater does not add to higher cost of future water supply in Singapore. In fact, the whole purpose of introducing NEWater is to reduce the increased cost of future supply of water in Singapore. Members of the House will remember that until the concept of water reclamation came about, the next alternative for Singapore was really to go for desalination. I have mentioned in this House on 22nd May 2002 that when you compare the cost of water reclamation - NEWater versus desalination - in terms of capital cost, the cost for NEWater is about half that of desalination. In terms of energy consumption, it is about one-quarter to one-fifth that of desalination.”
“Sir, the USA started the indirect potable use of reclaimed water in the early 70s. In those days, some of these plants were using traditional filtration method. Over the years, with advances in membrane technology, we are now able to achieve better quality at a lower cost. Technology has now made the production of reclaimed water more efficient and cost-effective. In the USA today, indirect potable use of reclaimed water is a growing trend as more and more cities face the challenge of water shortage. Our understanding is that new water reclamation plants in the USA are increasingly using membrane technology. The three processes referred by Mdm Ho are what we call the dual-membrane and ultra-violet processes. This combination of processes is gaining popularity. New water reclamation plants in the USA are moving in this direction of adopting dual-membrane and ultra-violet processes. Earlier this year, our NEWater plant was awarded the excellent award by the National Water Research Institution in the USA because we have established a benchmark that is as best as anywhere you can find in the world in terms of our ability to make cost-effective use of technology to produce water quality of the highest standard.”
“At two of the briefing sessions I attended personally, 98% of the grassroots and community leaders, having understood the process involved and the quality achieved in NEWater, indicated that they have no problem in drinking NEWater and accepting the idea of indirect potable use of NEWater. The other 2% expressed that they still have some psychological barrier and that they would like to understand the process more before they are ready to fully embrace the idea. The PUB is now in the process of producing a documentary on NEWater. It will be telecast over the TV channels in August. PUB will make available VCD copies of the NEWater documentary to educational institutions and grassroots organisations. By early next year, the public can also come to PUB's new Visitors' Centre at Bedok Water Reclamation Plant to see the actual operations of the NEWater plant. They will be able to see at first hand the use of leading edge membrane technology and ultra-violet process in the production of NEWater. Through these efforts in public education, we are confident that Singaporeans will come to recognise that NEWater is indeed a safe, affordable and sustainable source of water supply for Singapore as we strive for greater self-sufficiency in the future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after two years of comprehensive physical, chemical and microbiological analyses of NEWater, the Panel of Experts formed to study the quality of NEWater has submitted its report to the PUB on 2nd July 2002. The Panel has made public its findings on NEWater at a press conference held last week. Based on some 20,000 test results, the Panel of Experts has concluded that NEWater is safe for drinking. It has met or surpassed all the standards for drinking water set by the World Health Organisation and the US Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, it is even cleaner than PUB water. In line with current practice in the USA on potable use of reclaimed water, the Panel has recommended that NEWater be used for indirect potable use, that is, mixing NEWater with raw water in the reservoirs for further treatment to produce potable water. PUB is now studying the Experts Panel's report and findings and will make its recommendation to the Government in about two months' time. A summary of the Experts Panel's report will be made available on PUB's NEWater website to be launched on 1st August 2002. At the same time, to enhance public understanding of NEWater, PUB has stepped up its public education efforts and will continue to do so in the coming months. PUB has started briefing the grassroots and community leaders a few weeks ago. Our public education programme will cover various areas. For example, to assure the public that NEWater is safe to drink, PUB explains the technology employed in the production of NEWater as well as the quality it is able to attain with NEWater. At the same time, to help overcome any psychological barrier, PUB explains the experience of the USA in the use of reclaimed water over the last 20-30 years for indirect potable purpose.”
“For stalls on subsidised rental, ENV, HDB and JTC conduct periodic checks on stallholders to see that they operate their stalls regularly to serve the public. Generally, stallholders are expected to operate their stalls for at least a few hours a day for 5 to 6 days a week to serve the public. Those found not operating their stalls regularly or for a prolonged period of time will be asked to resume business, unless they have good reasons for not doing so, for example, due to medical reasons or if they were on overseas trips. Action may be taken to have the tenancy agreements terminated and the stalls repossessed for stallholders who persist in not opening their stalls regularly. In 2001, 170 stallholders were found to have not operated their stalls regularly. All of them resumed business at their stalls, after they were asked to do so. In the last 3 years, only one subsidised stall was repossessed in 1999 because the stallholder did not operate the stall regularly, after repeated reminders and warnings. For stalls paying market rental, the stallholders would normally terminate their tenancy agreements if they are unable to operate their business viably. AIRPORT LOGISTICS PARK 26. Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang asked the Minister for Transport (a) if he will give an update on the preparation of the Airport Logistics Park of Singapore which will operate as a free trade zone in the near future and (b) whether Changi Airport will be seeking to increase its income through business cooperation with other airports around the world.”
“NEA will encourage research in the technical community. NEA will promote innovation in the industry, and commercialisation in the marketplace so that the results of research can be widespread. Sir, in other words, NEA will be looking at how upstream R&D, midstream innovation, and downstream deployment and commercialisation, can be best synergised without getting too involved directly in any of these areas of work. Last, but not least, Mr Andy Gan suggested that the penalty that we impose should take into consideration the severity of the offences. I fully agree with Mr Andy Gan. When we impose penalty, we will certainly take into consideration the implication and impact on the environment. Sir, I think I have answered most of the points brought up by the Members. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Balaji Sadasivan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. " - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Seven Minutes past Two o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION NATIONAL ARTS COUNCIL 1. Dr Ong Seh Hong asked the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts if he will give a breakdown of the grants given out by the National Arts Council by (i) type of Arts Groups, (ii) number of applications for grants for the years 2000 and 2001 and (iii) number rejected.”
“Many of the examples mentioned by Mr Andy Gan really are issues between balancing environmental consideration and land use consideration. Up till now, I think the Government has found it most efficient and most effective for NParks to come under the Ministry of National Development, because land use consideration and environmental management consideration can best be balanced within the same Ministry. I also want to emphasise that just because NEA is looking after the brown issues, NParks after the green issues, and MPA after the blue issues, it does not mean that the three agencies will be working in isolation. In fact, the three agencies work very closely together. One good example is the SGP 2012. NParks is an integral part of this whole exercise. By the time the SGP 2012 is formulated and implemented, ENV, NEA, NParks and MPA will collectively take joint responsibility in the overall implementation of SGP 2012. Sir, Mr Andy Gan also asked whether we can do something to enhance the interest of our younger generation in local weather broadcast and so on, so that in time to come, maybe we can even nurture a weather industry. Sir, this is a very interesting idea. I will convey this to MSD. Once it comes under NEA, we will see what can be done and what needs to be done. Mr Andy Gan also asked whether NEA will set very clear policy directions regarding the research direction for clean energy. Sir, the NEA, basically, will pursue management by outcome. The concern of the NEA will be to ensure that the ambient air quality of Singapore will remain within the standard imposed by the World Health Organisation and the USEPA. Research is a means to the end. In other words, NEA, in itself, will not undertake research. Rather, it will pursue the 3P partnership.”
“Sir, let me move on to respond to the points raised by Mr Andy Gan. Basically, Mr Andy Gan asked whether nature conservation should come under the NEA. Broadly speaking, from the environmental angle, there are three types of issues. First is the green issue relating to nature conservation, bio-diversity, and so on. The second type will be the brown issue, eg, pollution control, and so on. And the third type will be the blue issue, eg, marine life, marine diversity, and so on. At this moment, all over the world, there is no standard practice on how the government should organise its agencies to address the blue, brown and green issues. Take, for example, in the case of USA, the USEPA is basically an agency that looks after the brown issues. The blue and green issues are looked after by some other agencies. In the case of Germany, for example, one agency takes charge of all three issues - green, brown and blue. In the case of Singapore, ENV, and now NEA, will continue to be responsible for handling the brown issues. In the case of NParks, it will continue to be responsible for the green issues. The Marine Port Authority (MPA) will continue to take charge of the blue issues. This is not without good reasons. Because, in the case of Singapore, marine resources are used mainly for port traffic. As a result, it makes more sense for MPA to regulate the traffic flow in our water, and enforce environmental protection measures at the same time. But, here, I want to point out that any land-based pollution, any activities on land that may lead to pollution in the water, will continue to come under NEA and ENV. There is therefore no gap in our responsibility. In the case of NParks, many of our green issues have to do with land use.”
“But how this technical information could be applied to a specific situation is something that the NEA officers should not be expected to take on the responsibility. Take, for example, if someone were to come to NEA and say that if he were to purchase a ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) vehicle, would that ULSD vehicle satisfy NEA's emission standard? Based on technical specifications, the NEA officers should be in a position to advise him. They will say, "Yes, if you go by the international standard for ULSD vehicles, you should be able to satisfy the requirement." But what if the ULSD vehicle turns out to be violating our emission standards due to maintenance or operational problems? Firstly, does it mean that NEA officers cannot take enforcement action against that person? Secondly, does it mean that once enforcement action is taken against him, he can take counter action against our officers for giving him wrong information? Sir, at the end of the day, we have to bear in mind that the more we remove this protection of good faith from the NEA officers, the more it is likely that the officers would behave in an even more bureaucratic manner. As my MOS has pointed out, the purpose of the NEA is to strengthen the 3P partnership, meaning that we would very much like to work very closely with the people sector, the public sector and the private sector. In that regard, as we work together based on good faith, it is very important that whatever information and assistance that the officers offer out of good faith to the industry and private sector, should not be taken against them. At the end of the day, it is really for the recipients of the information to make their own technical or business assessment on whether they want to accept the input of the NEA officers.”
“Basically, we offer consultancy to organisations and projects in the region for the purpose of enhancing regional collaboration. The officers may also be asked to undertake some consultancy services - maybe in places like China. These projects are undertaken in order to, firstly, strengthen our collaboration on a country-to-country basis; and, secondly, to enable our staff at NEA, as part of their professional development, to keep track of some of the development and issues faced in the region. But, at the end of day, I want to assure the House that it is not the intention for NEA to function as a business entity, because it is not set up to be a business entity. It will continue to be a Government-funded statutory board. And the main responsibility, as my MOS has presented, is to ensure that environmental performance in Singapore will continue to be improved, and the foundation for sustainability will continue to be enhanced. Most of these works will be done through the private sector, by the private sector. ENV will set the policy; and the NEA will enforce on the operational aspects; whereas the actual implementation will be done by the private sector. Dr Teo brought up another point regarding the protection granted to employees and officers of the Board. Sir, here, again, I want to emphasise that, as public sector employees, NEA employees, from time to time, are asked by the private sector to provide information regarding certain aspects of our work. For example, waste disposal, clean air, and so on. Based on good faith, from time to time, my officers do share some technical information with the private sector.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Members - Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Andy Gan - for speaking up in support of the Bill. I will go through some of the issues raised by Dr Teo Ho Pin first. Firstly, Dr Teo is concerned whether the National Environment Agency (NEA), being an autonomous agency, will adopt a business model that is revenue-driven. I suppose Dr Teo is concerned, firstly, whether this Agency would compete with the industry for business and, secondly, whether this Agency will over-emphasise on revenue generation to keep the Agency going. Sir, here, I want to assure the Member that, firstly, the NEA will be an Agency funded by the Government. In other words, the NEA is not set up to be a self-funding statutory board, but rather a statutory board - to be funded by the Government to offer public services. Secondly, the revenues collected by the NEA, whether it is through fees, fines and so on, NEA will not get to keep the revenue for its own use. This is because every year, NEA will be getting a grant from the Government. So whatever revenue the NEA is going to collect, through fees, fines and so on, will be offset against the grant from the Government. As far as NEA is concerned, it will be operating on an annual budget based on its operating requirements. It is not driven by revenue generation. Dr Teo is concerned whether NEA will compete with the private sector for business. Sir, here, I want to assure the House that, again, it is not the intention of NEA. The staff of NEA, from time to time, will offer consultancy service for overseas projects. For example, we extend technical assistance to the Riau province in Indonesia, under a G to G programme.”
“We are going to work with the Restaurants Association of Singapore, the Coffeeshop Association, the Singapore Tourism Board, the National Parks Board, grassroots organisations and so on, to heighten public awareness on the need for clean public toilets. At the same time, we are going to improve the standard and quality of public toilet cleaning. We are now working with the Centre for Cleaning Technology, as well as SPRING Singapore. We are going to train all the cleaners of public toilets to make sure that they will have the proper technique and equipment when they clean these public toilets. Last but not least, Mr Ang suggested that we should have an island-wide competition on the "Cleanest Public Toilet". Again, I think it is a very good idea. Since Mr Ang is the man behind the island-wide "Cleanest HDB Estate Competition", I encourage him to organise this competition for the "Cleanest Public Toilet". I assure him that ENV will give him our fullest support. Let me conclude by referring to what Mr Ang said about China. I was in China briefly in December on a holiday in Beijing. I asked a taxi-driver, "Why is your public toilet so clean now?" He mentioned the same reason - they are gearing up for the Olympic 2008. He said, "Look, our leaders told us that a country with dirty toilets has no future." Sir, in the context of Singapore, I would say that a country with dirty toilets has no pride. I hope all Singaporeans would take pride in having clean public toilets in Singapore. Our aim is to turn these dirty public toilets a thing of the past. Therefore, your aim will help!”
“Out of these 1,100 public toilets, 800 of them are found in the coffeeshops. Over the years, these agencies I mentioned earlier have implemented a systematic programme to upgrade these public toilets. For example, for ENV and HDB, we have upgraded 52 public toilets at hawker centres at a cost of $5.5 million. Over time, all the public toilets in all the hawker centres will be upgraded under the Hawker Centre Upgrading Programme. Likewise, for the National Parks and SMRT, they also have a formal programme to upgrade their public toilets. However, there is one area where we do not have a formal programme. These are the public toilets at the coffeeshops. As I mentioned, there are about 800 of them. These coffeeshops, as pointed out by Mr Ang, are used not just by the customers, but also by the members of the public. I therefore fully agree with him that it is useful for the Government to see how we can speed up the upgrading of these public toilets at the coffeeshops. I am happy to say that we have decided to launch a new upgrading scheme known as the Toilet Upgrading Scheme (TUP). Under TUP, the Government will co-pay 50% of the cost of upgrading of these coffeeshop toilets up to a maximum of $5,000 for each toilet. This would be made available to all the 800 toilets in the coffeeshops, both rental as well as those that have been purchased. This will cost the Government a total budget of $4 million. We think it is a worthwhile investment. This scheme will start in September. Let me conclude by saying that it is insufficient to just upgrade the toilets, because at the end of the day, it is very important that we take good care of these toilets as well. We intend to mount a 3P partnership programme.”
“But at the end of the day, the rental adjustment for the stallholders there was only $1 per day. In other words, if we were to try to recover the cost of upgrading through rental adjustment, I work out that we will need something like more than 100 years before we can recover the cost of upgrading. This is not our intention. The whole purpose of upgrading is to ensure that Singaporeans will continue to have a place where they can have good food at affordable prices in a conducive setting. Prof. Low asked whether there is anything we are going to do to ensure that prices at the hawker centres will not go up. Sir, this is an open market. What I can assure the House is that, under the ENV and HDB hawker centres, there are altogether 20,000 hawker stalls. In other words, we should let market forces work to the fullest. If there is any stall that charges higher prices, I would encourage the consumers to stay away from such stalls. On the whole, I would say that the upgrading programme has progressed quite smoothly. By the year 2004-2005, we aim to upgrade one in three of the hawker centres. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked whether ENV would consider taking over the function of HDB in managing all the hawker centres in Singapore. HDB and ENV do work very closely together. But I do see the point brought up by Mr Ang Mong Seng. What I intend to do is to discuss with my colleague at the Ministry of National Development to see whether we can work together, as suggested by Mr Ang, to provide a one-stop service to the hawker centres. Let me go on to the cut on public toilets. Mr Ang asked what is the progress on the upgrading of public toilets. Today, the National Parks, SMRT, bus interchanges, hawker centres and HDB together manage about 1,100 public toilets.”
“Sir, Prof. Low Seow Chay touched on the issue of upgrading of hawker centres. I want to assure Prof. Low that we are fully aware that upgrading of our hawker centres is a very expensive exercise. It will cost the Government about $420 million over 10 years. In batch one of the programme, the total cost came up to about $120 million. For the second batch, the budget is in the region of $50-$70 million. Therefore, we are equally mindful, as Prof. Low is, on the need to keep the cost of upgrading to as low as possible. Sir, I want to assure Prof. Low and this House that the ENV places emphasis of design basically on a few areas. Firstly, it is to improve ventilation; secondly, to improve the layout for better circulation; and, thirdly, where possible, to put in some handicap-friendly features. At the same time, we try to make the seating arrangements as innovative as possible, so that groups of different sizes can sit together. On the whole, we have been able to contain the costs of upgrading. So far, based on all the tender returns that we are getting, I would say that we are able to derive some savings from our budgetted sum. Notwithstanding what I have said, I can assure Prof. Low that we will continue to be mindful of the need to contain the costs of upgrading. 2.00 pm Prof. Low also made the point that upgrading may lead to higher rentals, and that higher rentals may lead to higher cost of hawker food. I want to clarify that this is indeed not the case. Yes, we spend a lot of money on upgrading the centres, but it is not our intention to recover the costs of upgrading through rental adjustments. Just a few weeks ago, I was at the Adam Road Hawker Centre. It costs us $1.7 million to upgrade the centre.”
“With the increased supply of our local catchment areas, together with desalination and NEWater, we are now diversifying and increasing our water sources from two today - Johor water and local catchment water - to four by the year 2005. In other words, if we look at Singapore as a country, we will have four big national taps. What is even more important to note is that the water coming out from each and every one of these four taps is of equally good quality. Should the supply be disrupted in any of these four taps, the other three taps can provide the mutual back-up to the fourth tap. We do not know what will happen to the supply of these four taps. Maybe drought will reduce the supply of local catchment water. Maybe pollution in catchment areas may reduce the supply of water from Johor. We do not know what will happen. But what is important is that we now have four taps. Whenever the supply in one tap is being reduced because of whatever reasons, at least we have three other taps to provide the mutual back-up. Sir, in this way, our supply system will not only become more cost-effective but, at the same time, more resilient as we become more self-sufficient in our water supply.”
“This is a very important factor because for potable use, we are concerned about bacteria count, viruses, and so on. Sir, here, I am happy to inform the House that based on the 20,000 analyses so far, they have established that the bacteriological quality of NEWater is as good as PUB water, because the presence of bacteria and virus is not detectable - it is so low. It is just not present in the water, thereby meeting the World Health Organisation's standards again. In other words, if we look at NEWater, it is not only WHO+, it is also PUB+. It satisfies all the WHO's standards and it is even cleaner than PUB water. Notwithstanding that, there is no need for us to rush the process. We intend to take it one step at a time. The next step is for us to await the recommendations from these international experts. We give them enough time to conclude their studies. We expect the recommendations to come to the PUB and the ENV sometime in July. Sir, Mr Ahmad Magad asked when will the Visitors' Centre for NEWater be ready. I am aware that the interest in NEWater is now getting higher and higher. This is a good sign. The PUB is now building the Visitors' Centre at the Bedok NEWater Plant, which will be ready by early next year. At the same time, to make it more convenient for our school students to get to know more about NEWater, we are exploring the setting up of a Visitors' Centre in the Singapore Science Centre. Sir, let me sum up the issue of water supply. As Members of the House have mentioned, it is very important for Singapore to secure our water supply, and to be more self-sufficient.”
“We were told that in Atlanta, Georgia, they are now building a water reclamation plant. Starting with 15 mgd, which will come into operation by 2005, it will eventually be expanded to 50 mgd. Again, North Virginia, having been very successful with the project that I mentioned earlier, is now building another plant. Starting with 10 mgd, it will come into operation by 2008. Basically, what is happening overseas has given us a lot of confidence regarding the potential indirect potable use of reclaimed water. Sir, in the case of Singapore, the NUS laboratory has been conducting very comprehensive analyses of NEWater to ensure that the water quality is indeed as good as what the technical literature has put it up to be. These analyses are supervised by a panel of experts, both internationally and locally, because we want to make sure that we tap on the best brains in the world. The process started more than two years ago and tests are now on-going. So far, the NUS laboratory has conducted 20,000 analyses over the last two years, and they have established that NEWater is cleaner than PUB water. Normally, we look at water quality from three angles; first, in terms of chemical quality such as the total organic carbon, minerals, nutrients. They have established, after 20,000 analyses, that NEWater is even cleaner than PUB water. Next, in terms of physical quality such as clarity and colour, again NEWater outperforms PUB water. In other words, NEWater is WHO+, because it is able to meet and exceed the World Health Organisation's standards. This explains why it is attractive to the industry for use as high-grade water. The third aspect is the bacteriological quality of the water.”
“Today, this water reclamation plant produces about 44 mgd. Again, they have plans to expand it to 70 mgd. At these various locations, they discharge the reclaimed water into the reservoirs, either aboveground or underground reservoirs. The reclaimed water is then further processed together with the water in the reservoirs, both underground and aboveground. The whole process is what we call the indirect potable use of reclaimed water. This means they do not consume the reclaimed water directly, but go through the process of mixing it with reservoir water and process it for the second time. Members may ask, if we say that the quality of reclaimed water is so good, why then is there a need to process the water one more time, by mixing it with reservoir water? I asked the technical experts and the answer given to me is very interesting. The technical experts told us that the reason they do this - indirect potable use - is not because the reclaimed water is not clean enough, but rather it is because the water is too clean. After going through dual membranes and ultra-violet, it is so clean that the process takes away the minerals and nutrients in the water. As a result, in all these places, what they have to do is to mix the reclaimed water with reservoir water because this is the easiest way to put back the minerals and nutrients into the water. After processing, it is consumed. Sir, another point to note is that while this process of water reclamation started in the 1970s in USA, it is becoming a growing trend in USA and other countries today. Why? Because the technology is improving all the time. The quality of the reclaimed water is improving and, at the same time, the cost of water reclamation is coming down.”
“At 75%, it means that every drop of water can be turned into four drops of water. This is the power of multiplication. So, the adding to and the multiplying of our water supply system - expansion in local catchment areas, desalination and water reclamation - is a very effective and very powerful combination. Furthermore, the challenge of water shortage is not a problem faced by Singapore alone. It is a global challenge. We can be sure that there is research going on today looking for cheaper and better ways of producing water. We can expect a breakthrough in technology in the coming years and decades. We intend to take full advantage of any technological breakthrough. Sir, on the whole, this diversified platform of water supply will enable us to increase our water supply in a sustainable manner for the next 50-60 years and beyond. Therefore, the answer to the second question, whether we are confident of having enough water from 2011 to 2061, again, is yes. Yesterday, Mr Othman and Mr Ahmad Magad asked whether NEWater is safe to drink and, if so, when do we plan to use it for potable use. The use of reclaimed water for potable use is not new, as pointed out by Mr Othman. This has been done in several parts of USA for more than 20 years. Take, for example, just outside of Los Angeles, a place called Orange County, they have been using water reclamation since 1976 under a project known as Water Factory 21. This Water Factory 21 produces 13 mgd, and is supplied to a population of about 2.5 million. They have plans to increase the capacity of Water Factory 21 to 110 mgd over time. Another example is North Virginia, a place called Fairfax County, just outside Washington D.C. Since 1978, they have been implementing water reclamation for a population of about 1.2 million.”
“Sir, the next question is: during the period between 2011 and 2061, will we have enough water? During this period, beyond 2011, we expect our total demand for water to continue to increase, as our population continues to grow and the economy continues to expand. On the demand side, we need to conserve as much as we can, a very important point mentioned by Dr Teo Ho Pin yesterday. The PUB has an on-going educational and publicity programme. Over the years, the education programme and the restructuring of our water tariffs have been effective. Take, for example, in 1996 and 1997, the increase in water consumption was about 4-5% a year. By 1998 to 2000, it dropped to 1.2%. Last year, the growth in water consumption continues to decline to 0.5%. Therefore, I share Dr Teo's point that it is very important for all of us to continue to do whatever we can to create this awareness towards water conservation. 1.15 pm At the same time, on the supply side, we will continue to increase our own supply. With the three projects which I have outlined earlier, there is still further scope for us to further expand the catchment areas. At the same time, with the cost of desalinated water coming down, there is still scope for us to continue to increase the amount of desalinated water. But, more importantly, there is still tremendous scope for us to produce a lot more NEWater from 2011 to 2061, and beyond. Sir, let me just share with the House here that the multiplying effect of NEWater is tremendous. For example, if we were to reclaim 50% of the used water, we will be able to double the water supply capacity in Singapore. Today, membrane technology for water reclamation can achieve a recovery rate of up to 75%.”
“Take, for example, the wafer fabrication plants. Today, they take our PUB water and process it to reduce the total organic carbon to a level that is acceptable for their operation. This will cost them money. But starting from next year, all the wafer fab plants in Singapore will be using NEWater instead of PUB water. Why? Because NEWater is cleaner than PUB water, and is more suitable for their operation. Yesterday, Prof. Low Seow Chay asked what are we going to do to market NEWater beyond wafer fabrication plants. Sir, this is a very good question. Our intention is to set up a reticulation system to reach out to various industrial estates and commercial hubs in Singapore, so that over the next 10 years, we will be able to expand the use of NEWater beyond wafer fabrication plants, to various other sectors such as semi-conductors, chemicals, electronics, utilities, engineering and so on. Starting with 15 million gallons per day next year for the wafer fabrication plants, our target is to expand the use to more than 55 million gallons per day by the year 2012. By the year 2012, NEWater or water reclamation will account for at least 15% of total water demand in Singapore. Sir, this increase in our water supply, namely, local catchment expansion by the year 2009, desalination by 2005, and NEWater by 2003 will be more than enough to make up for the drop in Johor water, by the time the 1961 water agreement expires in 2011. In other words, to the question whether we have enough water by the year 2011, the answer is yes. We will have more than enough to make up for the reduction in Johor water. At the same time, this increase in our own supply will enhance our self-sufficiency in water supply.”
“At this moment, only 5% of the water after treatment is reclaimed as industrial water. The other 95%, or more than 280 million gallons per day, is being discharged into the open seas, and is really wasted. Today, with the advancement in membrane technology, it is now possible for us to recover a good percentage of this 95% of treated used water and turn it into clean water again. In other words, we can really give every drop of water a new lease of life. Instead of releasing this water into the open sea, let this treated used water be mixed with sea water, and then take it back to go through desalination, which will be very expensive. Basically, we are saying, why do we not capture this water before it is being discharged into the open sea? So, we turn the treated used water into new water, and we give it a new lease of life, and that is why the PUB has called it the NEWater. Dr Teo Ho Pin yesterday asked whether this strategy is a costly option. Will it be very expensive? In fact, water reclamation has two major advantages. Firstly, it is much cheaper than desalination. In terms of capital cost of the facility for reclaimed water, it is about half that of desalination. Secondly, in terms of energy consumption - energy cost - water reclamation costs only one-quarter to one-fifth that of desalination. Putting the two together, the saving in capital cost and the reduction in energy cost, in fact, NEWater will cost about half to one-third that of the cost of desalination. The second advantage of NEWater is that it is clean. It is even cleaner than PUB water. If we are to look at the total organic carbon of NEWater, it is less than one-tenth of PUB water. Precisely because of that, the industry users find NEWater to be very attractive.”
“Sir, this leads me to our third strategy which is to develop water reclamation into a major source of supply in the long-term supply system of Singapore. Some may ask what is the difference between water reclamation from desalination. Why do we say that desalination is addition? Why do we say that water reclamation is multiplication? There is a big difference. Today, we consume 300 million gallons of water per day. Every single drop of the 300 million gallons of water, after being used, is treated by PUB to internationally accepted standard before it is discharged into the open seas. And to make sure that this water is treated to the standard required of the international community, we continuously invest in our infrastructure to ensure that sewage water will be treated properly. This is precisely why we embarked on the DTSS (Deep Tunnel Sewerage System), as mentioned by Mr Zainul yesterday. The DTSS is our long-term solution to ensure that every single drop of used water will be treated properly and in the most cost-effective manner. In other words, the implementation of DTSS is to help us save money in the treatment of used water. It does not incur additional cost. In fact, it saves us cost. Therefore, the concern that the DTSS may lead to higher water prices in the future is unfounded. Secondly, Mr Zainul also asked whether we can find ways to use the DTSS for other utilities. It is a good idea, except that the DTSS is very deep. That is why it is called deep tunnel. It is about 30-50 metres underground. It is too deep for us to use it for electricity, cable and so on. Having said that, let me come back to the point about water reclamation. As I said, every drop of water is now being treated before we discharge it into the open seas.”
“We are securing water supply, hopefully, that will strengthen our supply system for the next 50 years, 100 years and beyond. In this regard, I do not feel comfortable relying on this idea of ferrying water, no matter what is the amount, no matter how cost effective it may be, from places like Australia, New Zealand and so on. As pointed out by Prof. Low, in times of emergency, maybe those options are viable. But, for today, I want to talk about long-term water supply, meaning sources which will be able to provide good quality and substantial quantity of water over a long duration - 50 years, 100 years and beyond - and at a competitive price. Otherwise, over time, we will not be able to contain the cost of water if these water sources are not cost competitive. With that in mind, I would say that the two strategies, which I outlined earlier to expand the local catchment area and to increase water supply through desalination, are what I call the strategies of addition. For example, let us say that in our zoo today, we have only one lion. If we decide that one lion is not enough, and we would like to have four lions, what do we do? One way is very simple. 1 plus 3 equals to 4. So we go out to look for another three lions. We bring them to the zoo. Then, 1 plus 3 equals to 4 lions. So this is the strategy of addition. Sir, there is another approach. Assuming that we have a lion, and why do we not find a lioness? With a male lion and a lioness, they can together produce baby lions. 1 plus 1, multiply by 2 also equals to 4. In other words, as we look for a long-term supply solution, we should not confine our mindset to just looking for new water sources to add to our supply. But, more importantly, we should think about how we can multiply the capacity of our water supply.”
“First, will we have enough water by the year 2011, if the 1961 agreement is not renewed and extended? Second, will we have enough water from 2011 to 2061? Lastly, what happens after 2061? Sir, I am glad to assure this House that even though the 1961 agreement will only expire in 10 years' time, the Government has already embarked on several key projects to increase our own water supply. I will now give the House an update on this. First, we are going ahead with three major projects to increase the supply of the local catchment water. We are going to convert the Marina Basin into a fresh water reservoir. Second, we want to create a new reservoir, down stream of the Lower Seletar Reservoir. Third, we are going to link up all the reservoirs in Singapore, so that we will be able to maximise the yield of the various catchment areas in Singapore. These three projects will be completed by the year 2009. They will significantly increase the supply of our local catchment water from where we are today. Secondly, we are going to proceed with desalination as a new source of water supply. The cost of desalination has come down steadily and rapidly by 50% over the last 10 years. PUB has therefore called a tender for 30 mgd of desalination water. The tender will close on 31st May. The plant will come into production by 2005. Besides desalination, what are the other options? Yesterday, Prof. Low asked whether we can ferry water from Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia and so on. Let me explain to the House that we are talking about securing water supply to meet the long-term requirements of Singapore. We are not talking about having additional supply to solve our problem for one day, one week, next five years or next 10 years.”
“We are aware that there are some trucks that are still not conforming to the rules and regulations. The ENV will continue to take enforcement action, and will pay particular attention to the locations cited by Prof. Low. Prof. Low also asked whether we have any rules to prevent vehicles carrying construction debris and sand from polluting the environment. The lorries are required to cover up the construction materials. The ENV carries out enforcement rounds regularly. Last year, there were 54 offenders. When they are caught, for the first offence, they are fined $150; second offence, $200; third offence, $250. Beyond that, for subsequent offences, these are not compoundable. They will have to go to court and the fines will be determined by the court. Sir, I believe I have addressed the issues relating to the management of solid wastes. I will now move on to address the issue relating to the management of water resources. On 5th April, the Prime Minister said in this House that Singapore will move away from our reliance on Malaysia for water. Yesterday, several Members - Dr Teo Ho Pin, Prof. Low Seow Chay and so on - have also called for the Government to increase our self-sufficiency in water supply. Sir, in 10 years' time, on the demand side, we can expect our demand to go up by about one-third, meaning that we will be consuming one-third more than what we are consuming today. This is on the demand side. On the supply side, the expiry of the 1961 agreement in 2011 will reduce water supply from Malaysia. Basically, the Members are asking, when that happens in 2011, with higher demand and lower supply, will we be faced with water shortage by then? Broadly speaking, Members of the House, as well as members of the public, are concerned with three issues.”
“What they really have to do is to upgrade their recycling operations, so that they can recycle these wastes faster and more efficiently. Under our Innovation for Environment Sustainability Fund, we are working with some of these recycling companies to see how we can help them to come out with new and better methods to recycle their wastes. For example, we are now working with the industry to see how we can process the horticultural wastes to produce compost in a shorter time so that the quality will be more consistent and better. At the same time, we will continue to enforce strict actions against those who deliberately flout the regulations. Over the past five years, we only had two cases of fire in the waste recycling facilities. One case was the wood waste recycling company at Lim Chu Kang. The wood waste caught fire in March 1998. The SCDF conducted an investigation and came to the conclusion that the fire was not set deliberately. So no legal action was taken against the company, but that company did clear the debris very promptly. The second case was the fire in November last year. I think this was the case cited by Prof. Low Seow Chay. As the case is now in court, I will not comment further on the case. 1.00 pm Prof. Low also asked whether there are any rules on enforcement to prevent the refuse trucks from leaking sullage water. Yes, indeed, there are rules and regulations on refuse removal operations. The waste collectors are required to use compaction vehicles for the collection of domestic waste, as well as various organic wastes. They have to minimise the smell and they have to prevent the spillage of waste. Before they embark on the road, they have to drain off the sullage water from the compaction of refuse into sewers in the bin centre.”
“Sir, our intention, basically, is to create more facilities in the private sector, through the private sector, so that some of this horticultural waste can be turned into compost and charcoal. Two new facilities will come into operation by the end of the year. Our target is to increase the recycling rate for the horticultural waste from 32% today to 70% over the next 10 years. Sir, the overall outcome of these three strategies that I have mentioned - reduce incineration, reuse bottom ash, as well as reuse and reduce the direct landfill, will hopefully help us to reduce, not just the amount of waste, but also the amount of waste for landfill. Today, we dispose about 2,400 tonnes of solid waste in the landfill site, and this quantity is expected to increase to 3,300 tonnes by the year 2012, an increase of almost 50%. We believe that the three strategies outlined earlier will enable us to reduce the waste disposed at the landfill site by 50%. Sir, instead of going up from 2,400 tonnes to 3,300 tonnes over the next 10 years, we should be able to reduce it, from 2,400 tonnes to 1,600 tonnes. And if we can succeed in doing so, we will be able to reduce the need for new incineration plants from 1 in every 5-7 years to 1 in every 10-15 years. But, more importantly, we will be able to extend the life-span of Pulau Semakau from 25-30 years today, to at least 50 years in time to come. Sir, I will now go on to address some of the specific cuts brought up by the Members. Prof. Low Seow Chay asked why do we allow some recycling companies to collect more waste than they could, and as a result pose a fire risk. Sir, ENV is aware that some of the recycling companies do accumulate a large amount of waste at their premises.”
“As I mentioned earlier, everyday 1,600 tonnes of incineration bottom ash are being produced from the burning of the solid waste in Singapore. At this moment, they account for two-thirds of the waste that end up in the landfill site in Pulau Semakau. Sir, we believe that if we can find ways to reuse this bottom ash, then over time, we will be able to reduce the demand for landfill. We started doing this with the LTA. A pilot project is now on-going. We were using the Incineration Bottom Ash (IBA) for road construction. If this project is successful, we do intend to broaden the use of IBA. Sir, let me move on to the third strategy, which is to reduce the solid wastes that are not being incinerated, but end up in the landfill site directly. We call it the direct landfill, eg, construction and demolition waste and used copper slab. Today, these are the two top solid wastes that end up in the landfill site directly, and they account for 50% of our direct landfill waste. So, we have decided to set a higher target for recycling these two waste streams. Sir, take for example the case of construction and demolition waste. We are now working with the construction industry to see how we can increase the recycling rate from 85% today to 90% by the year 2012. At the same time, in the case of the copper slab, from 90% to 95%. Sir, yesterday, Mr Ang Mong Seng asked whether something can be done to recycle tree branches, trimmings and so on, and turn them into useful products. Horticultural waste, as mentioned by Mr Ang yesterday, is not small. Every year, we produce about 280,000 tonnes. These are basically generated by the landscape contractors of NParks and the various Town Councils.”
“At the same time, we will also encourage them, for example, to place recycling bins in void decks, to supplement the door-to-door collection. Last, but not least, we will continue to strengthen public education, and to improve community awareness. Sir, in this regard, we will be working very closely with the grassroots advisors, Town Councils and so on. For example, we will put up posters on notice boards, in the Town Council Newsletters, and we intend to conduct roving exhibitions at the various community centres. Sir, we believe that these three actions, when taken, will be able to ensure that the operation of the National Recycling Programme will become smoother and, at the same time, lead to a greater level of participation by the households. Hopefully, this will lead to a reduction in incineration, and thereby help to contain any potential rising cost in refuse collection in the future. But, of course, to reduce incineration, household recycling alone is not enough. We will continue to promote recycling in the industries. In fact, we are very happy to see that the level in recycling in the industries has improved last year in the areas of construction and demolition waste, used copper slab, paper, cardboard, and so on. We are also beginning to see the recycling of food waste from the food industry. All these are very encouraging signs. Sir, in the coming years, in order to reach a 60% target by 2012 under the SGP 2012, we have set ourselves much higher targets for a whole host of waste stream. Sir, having addressed our strategy to reduce incineration, I would like to go on to talk about what we can do with the incineration bottom ash, when it comes out from the incinerators.”
“It has not been consistent and thereby created a problem for the households. At the same time, many of the private apartments and condominiums in Singapore are not part of the National Recycling Programme yet because the collection of waste for private apartments does not come under the ENV. Sir, in the coming months and years, we intend to take three actions to further improve the National Recycling Programme. The first action we are taking is to expand the coverage of the National Recycling Programme. In the case of the condominiums, the participation rate today is only 4%. Our aim is to increase it to at least 30% over the next two years. ENV has started working with 14 major managing agents in the private sector to introduce recycling to the condominiums managed by them. Some of them have indicated to us that they do intend to introduce recycling within the next 3-6 months. The second action that we are taking is to improve the quality of service of collection. ENV is now looking into the introduction of what we call "Minimum Quality of Service" (QOS). These QOS standards will be imposed on all the public waste collection companies, and all companies that want to take part in the collection of recyclables. For example, we are looking into the possibility of requiring them to provide 100% coverage to every household within their area of responsibility. It means that they cannot pick and choose. Secondly, door-to-door collection must be done at least once every 2 weeks, and on a fixed day of the week, so as to make it easier and less confusing for the households. Last, but not least, they must be committed to collect a minimum list of recyclables, so that the scope of recycling can be broadened over time.”
“Sir, what it means is that, over time, if we can continue to encourage our residents and households to participate in recycling, then hopefully the day will come when certain precincts could reach the critical mass to the extent that the public waste collection companies will be able either to contain the rise in the refuse fees, or maybe even to reduce the refuse fees, because they will be able to derive additional value from the avoidance of having to pay for the incineration, as well as to be able to derive values from the recyclables. Sir, in this regard, the Members of the House here can actually do a lot to help us encourage the residents to take part in recycling. Hopefully, their precinct will be among the first to benefit from having achieved the critical mass in recycling. Sir, some Members may ask, is it possible for us to achieve a critical mass in recycling? For me, the answer is "Yes". In April last year, 2001, we initiated the National Recycling Programme. At that point in time, only 15% of the residents took part in recycling, meaning 1 in 7. By the end of last year, it has gone up to 22%, 1 in 5. By the end of this year, our target is to achieve 1 in 3, and by the end of next year, 1 in 2. In other words, if we continue our momentum in recycling, we can indeed achieve a critical mass in recycling. We have made a good start, but I would admit that there is still room for improvement. Take, for example, some households, even today, are still not issued with green bags, because the recycling company, for whatever reasons, decided that it is not worth their while to issue the green bags to certain categories of households. In some cases, the companies, even though they were supposed to collect the green bags once every two weeks, did not do so regularly.”
“In other words, the refuse collection fees for households and SMEs would have to go up by about 9%, and not 15%, as mentioned by Prof. Low Seow Chay yesterday. This works out to about less than $1 per month per household. For HDB flat, it is about 88-95 cents per month. In the case of landed property, it is about $1.50 per month. In the case of the hawker centres and market stalls, it is about $5 a month. Sir, I know that nobody likes any increase in the refuse collection fees. But, as I have mentioned, the present way of managing our solid waste is not sustainable. So, the only way for us is to work together to enhance the level of recycling, as that is the only sustainable solution. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked at what point in time that the refuse fee can be lowered if the residents continue to support waste recycling efforts. Sir, this is a very good question. The refuse fee comprises two components. The first component is the service fee that we pay to the public waste collector for collecting the waste from our doorsteps. The second component is the disposal fee - for them to send the waste to the incineration plant for incineration. For every tonne of solid waste that the household is able to recycle, the public waste company will be able to avoid the payment of $77 for that tonne of waste, because he no longer has to incinerate that tonne of waste. But the problem is, on the whole, the level of participation in recycling, as well as the amount of waste being taken out from our waste stream, at this moment, has not reached a critical mass. As a result, the public waste companies are still not able to derive enough savings from recycling to compensate for the cost of recycling infrastructure.”