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 20 of 25.
“Secondly, even for those waste that has to be incinerated, we try to find ways to re-use the bottom ash, so that they do not have to go to the landfill site. And, lastly, for those solid wastes which go directly to the landfill site without going through an incineration process, we also find ways to re-use them, so that we can move towards what we call zero landfill. Hopefully, the day will come when there is no need for landfill requirements at all. In fact, zero landfill is the only sustainable way for Singapore in the management of solid waste. This is the reason why we have no choice, but to continue to increase the charges for the incineration fees, not to make profits, but only to recover costs. Even with the latest round of increase to $77 per tonne, the amount collected is still below the full cost of processing the solid waste. 12.45 pm Incineration fee accounts for about 60-70% of the total operation cost of the public waste collectors. Companies that collect waste from the households have to pay for the incineration cost. The fees they pay for incineration accounts for about 60-70% of their business cost. This is the reason why when there is an increase in the incineration fees, they will have to recover this increase in the fees from the increase in refuse collection fees. The ENV is mindful that this adjustment will have some impact on our households and, in particular, on the SMEs. We have therefore spread out the increase over a period of few years. The last increase from $67 to $77 came up to about 15% increase. But, of course, incineration fee does not account for 100% of the business cost - only 60% of business cost. So, 60% of 15% gives you 9%.”
“Sir, I thank the Members for sharing their views relating to the management of solid waste and water resources. This afternoon, I would like to respond to the solid waste issues first, followed by water issues. Yesterday, Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay, Mr Ang Mong Seng and Mr Low Thia Khiang asked about the reasons for the recent increase in incineration fees and refuse collection fees. Sir, there is no more landfill sites on the main island of Singapore. Today, 7,000 tonnes of solid waste are generated and burnt at our incineration plants every day. These 7,000 tonnes are burnt because we need to reduce the volume of our solid waste to preserve our landfill capacity. These 7,000 tonnes of solid waste are turned into 1,600 tonnes of bottom ash. We then landfill them at Pulau Semakau. The present approach poses two problems. Firstly, every 5-7 years, we have to build a new incineration plant. These plants are not cheap. For example, the latest plant we built at Tuas South costs $890 million. It is not cheap. The second problem is that every 25-30 years, we have to find a new landfill site, the size of Sentosa Island. I think Members here will agree with me that the present approach is not sustainable. It is not possible for us to build a new incineration plant at a cost of $890 million once every 5-7 years. It is not possible for us to find a new landfill site, the size of Sentosa Island, once every 25-30 years. We, therefore, have to adopt a new approach to the management of solid waste. Basically, we have embarked on three strategies. Firstly, we do whatever we can to encourage the reduction of waste, so that we can reduce the amount of waste that goes into incineration.”
“Madam, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2002/2003 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow. Mdm Deputy Speaker: So be it. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Lim Swee Say]. Adjourned accordingly at Seven o'clock pm.”
“At the same time, we are committed to fulfill our obligations to various international agreements that we are party to. More importantly, we are going to do more for the international community by supporting capacity building efforts. Many of the developing countries are now pursuing the ideal of sustainable development. However, capacity building is a key challenge faced by many of these developing countries. Sir, ENV will continue to provide training to these developing countries, including the ASEAN neighbours and the small island developing states. We intend to step up our training efforts and offer training not just in the technical area, but also in environmental management. In conclusion, the SGP 2012 will be formally launched in August. It will be presented in World Summit for Sustainable Development in September. SGP 2012 is jointly formulated by the 3P partners, and it will require the joint efforts of the 3P partners for us to turn our vision of going beyond clean and green towards sustainability into reality. I am confident that, as long as 3P partners work together, we will be able to go beyond clean and green, and put Singapore firmly on a path towards environmental sustainability.”
“As we promote 3P partnership, as we engage the people sector in our various programmes, it is very important that we make sure the environmental industry is able to offer the effective solutions to solve our environmental challenges. Sir, the ENV has embarked on an exercise, for more than six months now, to re-invent the environmental industry. We are now working towards upgrading the capabilities in our environmental industry, so that the industry will make more use of technology. The jobs should be redefined, the skills of the workers should be redeveloped so that, over time, we will be able to professionalise the industry and enhance the image of the industry. The ENV is now working very closely with the Waste Management and Recycling Association of Singapore, which is the industry body. At the same time, we are drawing on the support of the various public sector organisations. For example, the JTC is working with us to create an eco-recycling park, with 19 hectares of land in Tuas. Our intention is to turn the eco-recycling park into a showcase of the environmental industry of the future, where the deployment of technology, the redefinition of jobs, the redefinition of skills would be done in a concerted manner. We will also involve the unions to ensure that Singaporean workers will be able to benefit from this re-invention of the environmental industry. At the end of the day, we believe that only by having a capable industry, an active people and a responsive Government, can we have a strong 3P partnership in Singapore. The third key thrust of SGP 2012 is to do our part for the global community. We will continue to play a pro-active role in the regional effort to stamp out transboundary pollution threats, such as the regional haze.”
“Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Iswaran asked whether ENV could do more to promote environmental awareness among Singaporeans, in particular, the younger Singaporeans. This is indeed the second key thrust of the SGP 2012, which is to promote the active participation of all to sustain quality living environment in Singapore. In this regard, we are going to promote 3P participation in all our major environmental initiatives. We are also going to step up efforts to increase public awareness, public education, and to strengthen joint ownership in the 3P sector. ENV is going to put our money where our mouth is. In this regard, I am pleased to share with you that ENV has decided to set up a 3P Partnership Fund. We have decided to set aside $750,000 for collaboration with the 3P partners, and this money will come from our existing budget. In other words, instead of spending the money conducting our own programmes, we have decided to set aside some of our existing resources to undertake programmes jointly with the 3P sector, and get it done through the 3P sector. We hope that, through such initiatives, we will be able to promote joint ownership in recycling and in various key environmental programmes. In this regard, we welcome any ideas and any proposals from our 3P partners. Mr Iswaran also asked what are the initiatives in SGP 2012 to promote environmental related industry. He asked whether we have any intention to turn Singapore into a centre of environment technology and to come out with environmental friendly solutions. This is a very good point because we look at the environmental industry as an integral part of the 3P partnership.”
“Over the next 10 years, we aim to keep the ambient air quality in Singapore to within the standards set by the World Health Organisation and the USEPA, and to be comparable with the best cities in the world. In the past 5-10 years, if we look at our PSI performance, the PSI is in the "good" range for about 60-80% of the year, except during those periods when we were affected by the regional haze. Our aim for the next 10 years is to maintain this level of 60-80% in the "good" range and, if possible, to strive for 85%, with the remaining 15% in the moderate range. What this means is that we need to make more use of clean energy, strive for greater energy efficiency and, at the same time, to adopt best practices in pollution control. More importantly, all these strategies must cut across all sectors of the economy and society, from industry to power generation, to vehicular emission, to the commercial sector and to the public consumers. Lastly, we recognise that air pollution knows no boundary. Therefore, we will continue to strengthen our regional effort to prevent the return of the regional haze. Sir, the fourth target we set is relating to public health. Singapore is located in a region where tropical diseases are endemic. We aim to ensure the low incidence rate of food borne, water borne, vector borne and indoor air borne diseases. We have to strengthen our surveillance system, invest in applied research, collaborate with public health institutions and work in partnership with the community. Our aim over the next 10 years is to transform Singapore into a leading regional centre in the research and control of communicable diseases that are transmitted by food, water, vector or indoor air.”
“30 pm The overall recycling rate of solid waste in Singapore reached 44% last year, after stabilising at 40% since 1996. Our aim under the SGP 2010 is to increase this recycling rate to 60% by year 2012. At the same time, we aim to double the life-span of Pulau Semakau from the 25-30 years today to at least 50 years. Mr Iswaran asked how does this target compare to the developed countries. The target of 60% is comparable to the best practices in the world. Take, for example, the Netherlands, the Number 1 country in recycling today. They have the highest recycling rate in the world today, and it is about 65%. In other words, if we are able to achieve 60%, it will put us at least above average by global standing. We are also going beyond the 60% recycling rate. We are going to adopt the best practice of Netherlands and strive towards zero landfill. This means as we promote recycling, we hope the day will come when we do not need to landfill any refuse or waste. Sir, the second target we have set is regarding our water supply. Our target for the next 10 years is to diversify and increase water supply in Singapore, so that we can become more self-sufficient. Today, we depend entirely on the conventional sources of supply, meaning local catchment water as well as the river water imported from Malaysia. Over the next 10 years, our target is to develop non-conventional sources of supply, namely, desalination and water reclamation, so that these non-conventional sources of supply will complement and supplement the conventional sources of supply to account for about 25% of our water demand by the year 2012. Sir, the third target we have set is regarding the air quality in Singapore.”
“I want to assure Mr Iswaran that the whole review exercise of the SGP 2012 is spearheaded by three focus groups, with 51 members coming from the 3P sectors. The 3P partners together identified the challenges, formulated the strategies and, together, they set the targets. These targets are not set by the ENV alone. Rather, they are set by the 3P partners collectively. Therefore, Mr Iswaran can be rest assured that, with the private sector being an integral part of the exercise, the targets we set under the SGP 2012 are realistic and pragmatic. Further, after the targets were set, we put all the information on the Internet for the public to give their feedback over a 3-month period. The feedback period is over. We are now reviewing the draft, based on the feedback we received from members of the public. With the involvement of the 3P sectors, we now have a shared vision in the SGP 2012. We now have joint ownership of the SGP 2012. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked what are the key performance indicators we have under the SGP 2012. Mdm Chairman, the first key thrust of the SGP 2012 is to ensure the innovative and efficient use of scarce resources to ensure that we would be able to achieve environmental sustainability. When we talk about innovative use, we are not talking about innovation for the sake of innovation. We are talking about innovation with a specific purpose in mind. And this specific purpose in mind is to ensure that we would be able to sustain environmental performance over the long term. At the same time, be able to reinvent the environmental industry in Singapore. There are various key targets set regarding the innovative and efficient use of scarce resources. Let me start with solid waste. 6.”
“Meaning that, based on their model, we should be living closer to environment disaster. They do not know why Singapore is different from that particular model. Madam, I relate this particular episode to convey the point that environmental sustainability is something not to be taken for granted. Singapore is clean and green today not because we have all the natural endowment to make us clean and green, but because we, as Singaporeans, as Government, as one people, work together all these years to ensure that we are clean, we are green. We created this environment. Our challenge is to continue with this determination, this creativity, this innovation, to ensure that we can sustain our clean and green environment for a long time to come. In that regard, I fully agree with Dr Teo Ho Pin on his point that we need to balance sustainable development with quality living environment. This is exactly the vision we have in the SGP 2012. Our vision for the SGP 2012 is to go beyond clean and green, to strive towards environmental sustainability. In other words, we are not talking about improving our environmental performance in the short term. Rather, we are talking about how we can sustain our environment for the long term. This change in mindset is very important because the only way we can sustain our environment is to harness the full commitment, the participation of the 3P sectors - the people sector, the private sector and the public sector - on an on-going basis. Mr Iswaran asked whether the targets we set under the SGP 2012 are realistic and whether we have taken into consideration the cost to the industry. This is a very important point.”
“Our point to them was that Singapore because of our ability to make use of technology, our ability to come up with new ideas all the time, our willingness to be disciplined, and our determination to ensure that the clean and green environment of Singapore can be sustained over the long term, we have made Singapore what it is today. After some exchanges, the study team was half convinced. Two months later, when they released the formal report at the World Economic Forum, we looked at the top of the report, we were not there; we looked at the bottom 10, we were no longer there. In fact, we came in 65th, in the middle of the table of 122 countries. So it shows that the study team was half convinced by our argument. One year later, in January this year, the same study team produced a second annual report on ESI ranking again. This time round, the report was released in New York city, because the World Economic Forum was held in New York City. When the report was out, we looked at the bottom 10. No, we were not there. We looked at the top 10. We were not there. We looked at the middle 10. Again, we were not there. So we thought, what happened to Singapore? We went through the whole list. In fact, Singapore "disappeared" from the list. What happened was the study team, after one year of analysis, of looking at the model, came to the conclusion that Singapore is in a very unique situation. Because there is no way they could explain the performance of Singapore - based on the model they come up with, they decided to call Singapore "an outlier". But there are two types of outlier - the positive type and the negative type. Fortunately, in our case, they have decided that we were a positive outlier.”
“Mdm Chairman, Singapore today is clean and green. However, if we look into the future, with a growing population and expanding economy, we are going to see more people on the street, more cars on the road, more air-conditioners at homes, and at the same time we are going to see ourselves consuming more energy, maybe producing more wastes. It is therefore important that we do not take for granted that the clean and green environment in Singapore will last forever. Mdm Chairman, just about 18 months ago, the World Economic Forum commissioned a study to look into the environmental sustainability of various countries in the world. This study came out with a ranking of the various countries along the line of an ESI (Environmental Sustainability Index). 122 countries were covered by this study. When the report came out, we found ourselves being ranked tenth. Not tenth from the top, but tenth from the bottom, meaning that the study concluded that Singapore is among the worst 10 countries in the world, in terms of our ability to stay away from environmental disaster. The conclusion of this study is that Singapore, sooner rather than later, is going to face with a serious problem with the environment. The ENV was taken by surprise. We studied the report carefully. We disagreed with the findings of the report. So we approached the research group and explained to them that the sustainability of environment went beyond just natural endowment. Because, at the end of the day, there are still these things known as technology, innovation, discipline and determination.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned earlier, the same safety operating procedures do apply at all the four locations. Further to that, the PUB has looked at the other four areas and concluded that the only area at this moment where there is mud flat and visitors is at the Lower Seletar Reservoir. PUB is going ahead to change the warning sign there into four languages as well. PSA CORPORATION LIMITED (Competitiveness) 2. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Transport what measures are being taken to ensure PSA Corporation Limited's competitiveness in view of the intense challenge posed by other ports to PSA's premier position.”
“This is to ensure that in a situation whereby some reservoirs may have reached 90% while there is still spare capacity in the other reservoirs, we will be able, through this reservoir integration scheme, to minimise and reduce the need to lower the floodgate at times of a heavy downpour. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: The Minister just now mentioned that there are four other areas with similar gates. Is his Ministry likely to conduct a survey as to whether these areas will also pose likely dangers to members of the public? Would it be better to make sure that no members of the public use the areas near the floodgate at all to avoid such incidents?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Tan raised a very interesting point. Today, in Singapore, our daily water consumption is about 300 million gallons. To make sure that there is enough water stored in the reservoirs in case of drought and so on, we have created as much reservoir capacity as we can. At this moment, the water storage capacity in our reservoirs is about 100 times our daily consumption - 300 million gallons multiply by 100 times will give us about three thousand million gallons of reservoir capacity. PUB's strategy is to manage our water supply and consumption in such a way that, as far as possible, we would like to keep the water level in the reservoirs as high as possible. In case we run into a situation of shortage in water supply due to drought season, these reservoirs will be able to serve as a buffer. The water level in the reservoirs now is about 90%. During a heavy downpour, we will have to let go some of this water. I would like to assure Mr Tan and Members here that we are certainly not wasting all our rain water. On the day of the incident, from 5 pm to 5.30 pm, the opening of the floodgate released about 17 million gallons of excess rainwater. But during the same half an hour period, we managed to capture about 51 million gallons. In other words, three-quarters of the downpour were captured and retained in the reservoir. The other one-quarter, unfortunately, has to flow away because the water level in the reservoir has already reached 90% which is the safety limit. However, Mr Tan may be happy to learn that we are now embarking on a programme to link up all the reservoirs.”
“Sir, Prof. Chin asked two questions: firstly, what are the likely dangers involved with the opening of the tidal gates? Sir, to be more specific, I will explain using the Kranji tidal gates. For the Kranji tidal gates, there are two types of operations. The first type is when the water level in the reservoir reaches a certain level. To prevent any upstream flooding or overflow of the reservoir, the floodgate will be lowered from the top, ie, the flag gates are declined, so that the water in the reservoir can overflow into the channel. For this kind of operation, the lowering of the flag gates, the danger area is actually very small. It covers only the first 40 metres of the channel. In fact, this is the reason why the first 80 metres of the channel is guarded by this high fencing so that nobody could get access to the first 80 metres of the channel. In other words, the lowering of the flag gates is a fairly safe operation and the danger area involves only the first 40 metres in the channel.”
“These are: (a) Converting the signboards in the park area into four languages, and (b) PUB staff using a loud-hailer to warn the public to stay clear of the water channel before opening the tidal gates. This is a temporary measure. We will review the need to continue with this measure as well as the need to introduce further measures pending the outcome of police investigation. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, may I ask the Minister whether the need for all these safety measures does suggest that there are certain dangers involved in the opening of these tidal gates? Could he perhaps elaborate what these dangers are likely to be and whether there will indeed be a proper inquiry into the extra measures, if possible, rather than waiting for the police investigation because I am not sure what the police will come up with? But surely, he has experts in the Ministry who can perhaps do the function better.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, PUB has put in place the following safety operating procedures at Kranji to warn the public on the opening of the tidal gates: (i) A siren is sounded for two minutes to warn the public on the opening of the tidal gates. (ii) A visual check is done to ensure that the channel outside the gates is clear of human activities before operating the gates. (iii) Both sides of the channel are guarded by high fencing, running for about 80 metres downstream. (iv) Signboards are placed in the park area to warn the public of the potential danger of rapid water flows in the channel in the event that the tidal gates are lifted. Prof. Chin asked whether there are any other areas in Singapore where there are similar situations. Sir, PUB has tidal gates at four other locations. These are: Lower Seletar Reservoir, Poyan Reservoir, Pandan Canal and Jurong Lake. Safety operating procedures similar to those in Kranji are also observed in these four locations. Sir, Members may wonder how effective these safety measures have been. These procedures have been in place for 27 years. There has not been any accident or mishap being linked to the operations of the tidal gates. As for the recent incident on 14th April 2002, I am aware that there has been some speculation, as reported in our local media, that the incident might have been caused by the operations of the tidal gates. So far, PUB has not found any technical evidence suggesting that this may be the case. Sir, the incident is now under police investigation. While awaiting for the outcome of the police investigation, the PUB has introduced two extra safety measures to address public concern.”
“Sir, I agree with Mr Heng Chiang Meng that energy conservation can only be effective if there is enough of public consciousness. When I mentioned that ENV would take over the IACEC, effective from April, I did also mention that we are going to expand the scope of the Committee beyond energy conservation to include clean energy as well. At the same time, I want to assure Mr Heng that the Committee would adopt a 3P partnership approach, meaning that whatever programmes we introduce, we will strengthen the partnership between the people, public and private sectors, so that together, we will be able to achieve this objective in energy conservation, as well as expanding it to clean energy. Mr Heng cited the example of the hybrid vehicles as an illustration that the Government is not prepared to put the money where its mouth is, in terms of promoting energy conservation. Sir, I beg to differ, because in the case of the hybrid vehicles, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology has already explained that the green policy as well as the transportation policy, must go hand in hand. In our national interest, Government has to balance between the green policy and transportation policy. As far as the IACEC is concerned, I assure Mr Heng that my Ministry will do whatever we can to harness the support and participation of the 3P sectors so that together, we can move towards energy conservation.”
“A day. $1 to $4 a day, depending on the location, where they are. For some centres, it will be $1; for some other centres, it could be as high as $4. But, on the average, it would be about $2, for the upgrading of the stall. If we do a simple calculation, we will find that it will not be possible for the Government to recover the cost of upgrading through this $2-per-day adjustment, because the cost of upgrading is about $20,000 per stall. So, at $2 a day, it will take us 10,000 days, or something like 30 years, to recover.”
“But as an indication, I am pleased to inform the House that the adjustment to the rental for the upgraded stalls will be between $1 and $4 a day. So, we are keeping it very minimal. An hon. Member: A month or a day?”
“So my Ministry has decided that we will offer cash grants to those who are more than 62 years old at the point of announcement. For example, if a centre is selected for upgrading - not for redevelopment but for upgrading - all the stallholders who are more than 62 years old can opt for these cash grants, if they want to. Whereas in the case of a major redevelopment, the cash grants will be offered to all stallholders, regardless of their age. On the question on whether there will be any change in rental after the upgrading, Sir, firstly, subsidised stalls in all centres pay a standardised base rate. For example, for a cooked food stall, today it is $160. In the case of a market stall, it is between $56 and $92. All centres today pay these base rates. These base rates are reviewed from time to time. The last time we reviewed the rental was in 1995, some 6-7 years ago. But I am happy to inform the House that my Ministry has no intention, at this moment, to revise the rental, meaning that there will be no change to these base rate rentals in the near future. However, for those centres that have undergone both upgrading and redevelopment, there will be some adjustment to the rental, to reflect the better facilities, design, layout and, in some cases, even bigger stall size. There are two types of centres. The first type is just upgrading, ie, no structural change, but upgrading in terms of better tables, stools, toilets, ventilation system and so on. For those stalls, the adjustments will be very minimal. I am not able to give the exact amounts, because the sums involved will vary across centres, depending on the condition of the centre, its location, etc.”
“Sir, as time is short, I will go directly to the points brought up by the various Members. Firstly, the issue of whether we will allow some flexibility in the design of the upgrading of centres. Sir, I am happy to say that what the Ministry will do is this. For upgrading, we will assign a standard budget, on a per-stall basis, for each project. The grassroots leaders, advisers and the market association can then decide what are the additional features and designs they would like to have. Of course, their design will be subject to approval by the ENV, HDB and JTC who are the managing agents, and the additional costs of these features will be borne by the grassroots organisations and the Town Councils. This means that we will provide them with the standard package and standard fund, and they can do the topping up. Secondly, is there any programme to enable some of the stallholders to get out, if they do not want to move into the upgraded centre? For the first-generation stallholders, they will be given $19,000. These cooked food stallholders can take the $19,000 and give up the stalls. In the case of the market stalls, they will be offered a cash grant of $15,000. So those who do not want to go into the upgraded centre, they can take the grant and leave. But these are only for those centres that are involved in redevelopment, ie, if we are going to reconfigure or redevelop the centre. As for the centres that are only meant for upgrading, ie, no structural change but just upgrading, our original intention is actually not to offer them these cash grants. But a few MPs have suggested that we should at least allow some of them, in particular, the older ones, to get out if they want to.”
“In that sense, while I note the point by Mr Kenneth Chen, I would say that the challenge really is to find a way to recycle these wastes. Because, if there is a way of using them, then I think it makes a lot of sense for us to move away from wastes that are non-biodegradable. Sir, I think I have addressed all the questions by Members.”
“With a higher cost of production, how to compete on the basis of low prices? Therefore, they asked me whether the Government could come in to subsidise or offset this higher cost of operation. Sir, I think this approach may not be sustainable because it would not be possible for the Government to continue to subsidise the recycling industry. But we believe that there is a lot of scope for us to speed up the process of innovation in our recycling industry so that the industry can come out with more innovative products that can command more attractive pricing in the market. In this regard, ENV, EDB and the various Government agencies are going to work closer together to support the industry through the IDS (Innovation Development Scheme), whereby we are going to co-fund the cost of developing new products, new processes and new applications of these recycled materials. In the process, I think we would be able to help them to become more viable and more profitable. Regarding labelling the recycled products, the Singapore Environmental Council has this Green Label scheme in place. What we can do is to work closer with them to incorporate this concept, as proposed by Prof. Low Seow Chay, into the Green Label scheme, and maybe to work with SEC to conduct a campaign to create greater public awareness. Mr Kenneth Chen also asked whether we should review the use of disposable crockery that are non-biodegradable. In the short term, what we are trying to do is to generate both the demand and supply sides. Because if we are not able to create the demand for the recyclable waste, at the end of the day, whether the waste is biodegradable or non-biodegradable, if they all end up in the incineration plant, it actually makes no difference.”
“At the same time, we will work together to nurture more companies, promote more investments, to build new capabilities and capacities in our industry for the 4Rs and, hopefully, in the process, we are going to speed up the pace of innovation in the industry. Sir, Prof. Low suggested that we should impose recycled contents in our Government procurement programme. I think we have to be pragmatic here. In the case of Singapore, many of our industries and manufacturers are basically global companies producing for the global market. So, in a way, our industry is basically an export-oriented industry. Our domestic market is a very small one. Therefore, we feel that to use our domestic market as a lever to enforce recycling contents in manufactured products may not be effective. At the same time, it may also affect our competitiveness in attracting foreign direct investment. We are not comfortable to insist such a regulation because the global manufacturers may also be constrained by the availability of recycled components. Instead of requiring them to do so, what we are trying to do is to create the condition in Singapore to make it attractive for them to do so. We believe that this will be the kind of win-win outcome we can strive for. Prof. Low also asked whether the Government can help to make the recycled products more attractive in terms of pricing and to label these recycled products. To make recycled products more attractive is a very good idea. It is something I fully agree. I spoke to many of our recycling companies. I asked them, "What is your strategy in competing for market share?" They said that their strategy is to sell their products cheaper than the non-recyclable products. However, they said that their cost of production is higher.”
“In the case of the commercial premises, we are going to reach out to the building managements to encourage as many building managements as possible in Singapore to introduce waste recycling in our commercial buildings. Hopefully, over time, we will be able to spread recycling beyond the industrial sector to the domestic and commercial sectors. Having taken action on the supply side, we are also taking action on the demand side, meaning that we are going to step up our promotion effort to further develop the recycling industry in Singapore. Our aim is to nurture a vibrant recycling industry in Singapore and position Singapore as a leading centre of excellence in 4Rs (reuse, reduce, recycle and recover) in this region. Mr Heng Chiang Meng yesterday mentioned that maybe we should introduce more incentives to encourage recycling, and today he mentioned that we ought to do more to promote "reduce" and "reuse". Sir, as I said, I agree with him. We are now looking at the experience of other countries and see in what way we can learn from them. I am going to make a trip to Europe in May and US sometime in July. The purpose is to see how we can learn from these countries on how they are able to implement recycling more effectively than Singapore. I am also pleased to inform the House that we have set up a multi-agency task force. It is led by EDB, comprising members from ENV, JTC and PSB. This task force, over the next few months, is going to formulate further our industry development strategies. They are going to propose new incentives, where necessary, to support and assist the industry in its development.”
“For example, our school children today, at Primary 3, are told about the importance of recycling. My daughter came back from school one day when she was in Primary 3 and asked mummy and daddy, "How can we participate in recycling?" She also asked, "Where is the bin for the plastics and bottles? Where is the bin for the cans?" I was very shy, pretended and said that there was no such system in our home today. The point is that after a few years, my daughter never talks about recycling anymore. Why? The awareness has not been turned into action. There is no continuous reinforcement. As a result, we are not reaping the benefit of all the effort we have put into education. That is the reason why ENV decided that we must now require all the public waste collectors to introduce waste recycling to every household in Singapore so that your daughter, my daughter, your son, my son, after coming home from school, having learned about recycling, hopefully, they will be able to practise recycling on a day-to-day basis. Under our contractual agreement with these nine public waste collectors, they are required by ENV to introduce waste recycling schemes and bring recycling to the door-steps of the residents. We believe this will make it easier for each and every household to participate in waste recycling. I am pleased to inform the House that Jurong sector will be the first to launch the scheme by April next month. The other sectors will do so by the end of this year. As for recycling at the commercial premises, as mentioned by Mr Simon Tay, I agree with him. In fact, this is another challenge that we have to overcome.”
“And that is the reason why yesterday, I announced that the ENV has set a target of achieving a 50% recycling rate over the next 10 years. Sir, I must admit that this is not an easy target to achieve. But we think it can be done. It is doable if all of us work harder together to achieve this. 1.00 pm Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked whether the Government is trying to pass the buck to the private sector. I can assure the House that that is not the intention. We look at this challenge as a shared challenge of the three "P" sectors - the Government, the private sector and the people sector. It is a common challenge facing all of us. So we are going to work together. We are not going to pass the buck to the private sector. At this moment, the recycling rates for paper, plastic, construction debris and book wastes range from 10% to 60%. We examine each of these items and our assessment is that there is enough scope for all of us to work together to increase the recycling rates for each of these types of wastes by about 20 percentage points over the next 10 years. That is why we believe that the 50% target is doable, not easy but doable, if we work hard enough, if we work together. The challenge really is how to extend recycling beyond the industrial sector. The 40% recycling today are basically achieved through recycling by the industrial sector. To extend beyond that to the domestic sector and commercial sector, we have to work both the supply and demand sides of recycling. Mr Kenneth Chen mentioned that we need to strengthen our education on waste recycling and spread the message, and we have to educate the young. And Mr Simon Tay mentioned that we have to go beyond awareness and turn awareness into action. I agree with both of them.”
“We also promote the fourth R, which is recovery. For example, all our incineration plants today recover heat from incineration of waste, and we feed the electricity to the national grid. Yesterday, Prof. Low Seow Chay asked what happens to all these materials collected for recycling. Sir, as I mentioned, the rate of recycling in Singapore today is 40%. Of the wastes that are being collected for recycling, about 50% are recycled in Singapore, and 50% for export. For the 50% recycled in Singapore, waste paper is recycled into paper products such as cardboards, and toilet papers. In the case of wood waste, companies are turning it into chip boards for furniture, wooden panels and so on. We are now using marine clay to make bricks for construction. In fact, HDB will be using some of these bricks produced by one of our recycling companies. So, on the whole, we think that 40% of recycling rate is not bad. If we compare ourselves to the rest of the world, in Germany, Munich city is 42%; Netherlands, 39%. However, the rate of recycling has stabilised at 40% since 1996, meaning that since 1996 we have not been able to increase the rate of recycling in Singapore. Therein lies our real challenge. Sir, yesterday, Mr Heng Chiang Meng said that we should encourage further recycling. I agree with him because our challenge today is to achieve another breakthrough beyond this 40% recycling rate. Mr Simon Tay mentioned that the privatisation of waste incineration would not solve the problem, in terms of sustainability. I agree with him. We believe that privatisation would only enhance our performance in the short term. But for long-term sustainability, we have to go beyond that.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Members for speaking on recycling. As mentioned by Mr Kenneth Chen, waste generation in Singapore is on the increase. Twenty years ago, we produced about 2,500 tons of solid waste every day. Ten years ago, the amount doubled to 5,700 tons and last year, as mentioned by Mr Kenneth Chen, it has gone up by another 35% over the 10 years, to 7,600 tons. The split between the domestic sector and the industrial sector is about 50:50. In other words, every person in Singapore today generates about 0.93 kilogram of solid waste every year. If we were to compare ourselves to, say, USA, it is still lower. In USA, it is 1.97 kilograms; Germany, 1.26 kilograms; Japan, 1.09 kilograms. The good news is that compared to many of the other countries, we are still producing less than them. But the bad news is that Singapore, being a small country, faces much greater challenge and constraint - in finding enough space to dispose waste. As mentioned by the Members, every five years, we need to build a new incineration plant. Every 30 years, we need to find a landfill site as big as Sentosa island. Obviously, this is not sustainable. Sir, yesterday, I mentioned that in order to achieve sustainability in the disposal of solid waste, we need to accord greater emphasis to waste minimisation. And I thank the Members for speaking up and for their support. Yesterday, Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked why do we not focus more on 3Rs - reuse, reduce and recycle. Sir, I agree with him fully. Since 1991, the Ministry of the Environment has been promoting 3Rs very proactively. There are 130 companies in the 3Rs industry, and they deal with a whole host of recycling: wood waste, paper, scrap tyres, copper slabs, marine clay and so on.”
“I thank Mr Harun for his feedback and I would ask my officials to look into some of these isolated cases. "CLEAN TOILET CAMPAIGN" 2. Mr Harun bin A. Ghani asked the Minister for the Environment how successful the "Clean Toilet Campaign" has been and what further improvements can be made to ensure clean public toilets. The Senior Minister of State for the Environment (Encik Sidek bin Saniff) (for the Acting Minister for the Environment): Sir, our public toilets are cleaner now than they were a few years ago. However, there is still room for improvement. Surveys conducted annually, since 1996 when we launched the Clean Toilet Campaign, showed that there have been gradual improvements in the cleanliness of our public toilets. Members of the public interviewed during the surveys have given higher scorings consistently over the last five years. Cleaners who maintain these toilets have also consistently rated the toilets to be cleaner over the years. ENV officers participating in the surveys have also independently rated the toilets and have also come up with similar scorings. A number of public toilets in ENV and HDB hawker centers have been extensively upgraded and users interviewed have expressed that they are pleased with them. More will be done. We will continue to push for clean public toilets in Singapore and will continue to require building managements to keep public toilets in clean and good working condition. Through public education programme, we will continue to remind the public to cooperate and help keep our public toilets clean. Mr Harun bin A. Ghani: Sir, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that surveys were conducted. Could the Senior Minister of State give details about ratings given by ENV for the last five years?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2001/2002, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, this is a very difficult area for the Government to intervene. As Mr Simon Tay mentioned, these are really financial and commercial actions taken by commercial entities. What we hope is that these Singapore-based lenders and traders, being responsible corporate citizens, will not associate themselves with illegal practices that are detrimental to the regional environment. Sir, with that, I believe I have addressed most of the issues brought up by Members.”
“Pak Saleh Djasit made a request for us to, firstly, help them to enhance their technical expertise in pollution management and control, both air and river pollution. He has also asked us to continue to provide information exchange, so that they can be kept up to date with whatever is happening. He has also asked that we continue to supply them with satellite images so that they will continue to know exactly where the fires are. At the same time, they have also asked us to continue to provide manpower training and this, basically, will be more at the provincial level. We have responded positively to his requests. A technical team from ENV will be in Pekan Baru in May to work out the entire package of technical collaboration between Singapore and the Riau province. We hope that, by continuing to work closely with the Indonesian government in Jakarta, and with the provincial government in Pekan Baru, hopefully, we will be able to do a better job together this time round, should we, indeed, see the return of El Nino. Mr Simon Tay also asked whether we could enforce Indonesian laws on the prevention of fire in Singapore courts. Sir, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that between nations, we have to respect the national sovereignty of our neighbours. Therefore, it is not appropriate to talk about enforcing Indonesian law in Singapore for offences which take place in Indonesia. But what we will continue to do will be, as I mentioned earlier, to work very closely with the Indonesian government, as well as with the provincial government. Mr Simon Tay also asked whether we could do something to advise Singapore-based lenders and traders to take a prudential approach towards their Indonesian clients and partners.”
“We have been keeping in close touch with our Indonesian counterparts, to help them in whatever way we can. For example, in the last 2-3 years, we have helped the Indonesian government and some of their regional authorities, to implement the PSI system. They now have a system to measure PSI, and are able to monitor the seriousness of the haze situation. As Mr Simon Tay mentioned, we have also shared with them satellite images. In fact, these satellite images are accurate up to 20 metres, ie, we are able to pinpoint the location of the fire, of the torchhead, all the way down to the nearest 20 metres. So, it is very easy now to be on the ground, to locate where the fire is. At the same time, we have provided manpower training to many of the Indonesian officials, because we have a training centre at ENV and, over the last few years, we have continued to take in trainees from Indonesia. Over the last six months, I have met with Dr Sony Keraf, the Indonesian Minister for the Environment, twice - once in Singapore, and once in Sabah, during the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on the Environment. On both occasions, the regional smoke haze was the No. 1 topic of our discussion. I think Dr Keraf is fully aware of our concern over the situation, and has assured us that he would do whatever he can to try to address the situation. As Mr Simon Tay has mentioned, the Indonesian government has recently decided to delegate more of the responsibility and authority to the provincial governments. In fact, just about a few weeks ago, I was in Pekan Baru and met with the Governor of Riau, Pak Saleh, and we discussed various issues, including the supply of water from Riau province and so on. One of the issues discussed was collaboration in environmental management.”
“Minister Mah Bow Tan, a few weeks ago, suggested to me that ENV take over the chairmanship so that we could close this energy loop, and I agreed fully with him. We are going to continue to push for energy efficiency and conservation and, at the same time, we are going to expand the scope of the Committee to include the use of cleaner energy. Sir, Mr Ong Kian Min suggested that we should introduce more incentives to encourage companies and organisations to adopt cleaner energy, like solar, for example. We do administer an incentive programme in ENV known as the Accelerated Depreciation Scheme for capital expenditure for energy-efficient and energy-saving equipment to be depreciated in one year, instead of the normal 3-year period. So far, 21 applications have been approved. But, having said that, I can assure the House that, under the IACEE, we will continue to examine what new incentives and additional programmes we should undertake, in order to speed up this conversion to cleaner energy, as well as to improve energy efficiency and conservation. Finally, let me move on to the issue of smoke haze. Sir, I thank Simon Tay for bringing this up, because it is an important issue. All of us remember that in 1997, we went through a bad spell of the regional haze. In the last few years, the weather has turned wetter and, as a result, we did not encounter any serious problem with the regional haze. That is the good news. The bad news is that the global climate is changing again and, according to the experts, there is a 30% chance that, this year, we may see the return of El Nino. What this means is that there is a chance that we may see the return of the smoke haze. What have we been doing in the last few years?”
“So our priority again is to reduce both and, in this area, basically our strategy is to encourage and facilitate the use of cleaner fuel, which is basically natural gas and, at the same time, encourage the use of cleaner technology. For example, many of our power plants are now using the combined cycle power generation process. We are also working on the flue gas desulphurisation. As far as power generation is concerned, we will continue to tighten emission standards, so that companies will speed up the adoption of clean energy. Let me move on to global warming, ie, carbon dioxide emission. Prof. Low Seow Chay asked whether any action has been taken to reduce emission, and Mr Ong Kian Min also asked whether there is any incentive for environmental-friendly energy, eg, solar energy. Sir, carbon dioxide emission comes mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. At this moment, our guesstimate is that power generation accounts for 50% of the CO2 emission in Singapore, industries 35%, and vehicles 13%. Given that we are a city-state and highly industrialised, we admit that, in terms of CO2 emission per capita, we are on the high side, and that it will continue to increase as our economy continues to grow, etc. While we cannot do much to try to reduce CO2 per capita, there is a lot that we can do, in terms of reducing CO2 per-million-dollar GDP. This means that, as we grow our GDP, we can find a more efficient way of reducing CO2 emission, basically through efficiency and energy use. In this regard, I am happy to inform the House that, starting from 1st April 2001, the Ministry of the Environment will take over the chairmanship of the Inter-Agency Committee on Energy Efficiency (IACEE). Right now, the IACEE is chaired by the Ministry of National Development.”
“In the longer term, we believe that, even for the petrol-driven passenger vehicles, CNG is also a very relevant and promising technology. Let me next move on to industries, because they are also a major source of air pollutants. Prof. Low Seow Chay asked about incineration, and whether we could do more to promote waste minimisation, in order to reduce the need for incineration. Sir, I will address that later on when we discuss the issue of solid waste disposal. But, as far as industries are concerned, our assessment is that industries today account for about 40% of SO2 and 20% of particulate matter. In other words, since SO2 and particulate matter are at the top of our list of priorities, we should do something too and, therefore, in the case of industries, our priority is to continue to reduce SO2 and particulate matter emission. Our strategy basically is, firstly, to continue to promote cleaner fuels for steam and heat generation, eg, low sulphur fuel oil and natural gas, and this will happen more and more, now that we have additional natural gas supply coming to Singapore. Secondly, we are also promoting the use of cleaner technologies to reduce the level of emission, eg, sulphur recovery, so that instead of disposing the sulphur into the air, we can actually recover the sulphur itself for other applications, or bag filters for particulate matter removal. Thirdly, we will continue to tighten the emission standards under the Environmental Pollution Control (Air Impurities) Regulations for particulate matters, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxides. Sir, the third source of air pollutants is power generation. It accounts for 60% of SO2 and 30% of particulate matters.”
“I agree with him that the fuel cell vehicle holds great promise. In fact, of the five types of vehicle, the fuel cell vehicle is the cleanest, from the environmental standpoint. But because the technology is still at a developmental stage, what we intend to do is to continue to monitor the development and, at the right time, to conduct pilot projects and bring them into Singapore. The remaining two are the hybrid vehicles and the natural gas vehicles. At least in the near term, these two types of green vehicle are most relevant, in the context of Singapore. So far, we have introduced incentive schemes for electric and hybrid vehicles, and we will see how it goes. At the same time, my Ministry is now paying a lot of attention to compact natural gas (CNG) vehicle. We place CNG vehicles high on our priority list because, firstly, these natural gas vehicles emit almost no particulate matter (PM), no SO2, very little carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. From the greenhouse point of view, they emit 20%-30% less CO2, compared to the conventional petrol or diesel vehicle. In other words, a natural gas vehicle is cleaner than a hybrid vehicle. It is more implementable, compared to the electric vehicle. At the same time, it is safer than an LPG vehicle. Therefore, we feel that it makes a lot of sense for us to promote natural gas vehicles in a more concerted manner. This is the reason why my Ministry is now working with SBS, SembCorp Gas, Volvo and Delgro, to try out 30 natural gas buses in Jurong by next year. Our aim is to learn from this pilot implementation and, from there, we can then look into the action plan, to extend the use of CNG vehicles to other diesel vehicles, not just buses, but also taxis, tour buses, maybe lorries, pick-up trucks and so on.”
“9% last year, which means that many vehicles, both Singaporean vehicles and Malaysian vehicles, are getting the message that we are indeed serious with our enforcement action and that more vehicles are now not committing this offence of emitting black smoke. Sir, the tightening of the emission standards and enforcement will go some way in helping to ensure that vehicular pollution will not get worse or get out of control. But we think at the same time, we ought to look for a more sustainable solution, which is the conversion to green vehicle. This is the point brought up by Prof. Low Seow Chay as well as a few other Members. Prof. Low asked what plans do we have to speed up the deployment of CNG and whether we have any incentive schemes in place to encourage company owners, and so on, to replace their inefficient vehicles with vehicles which are more energy efficient. Sir, my Ministry has looked at the five types of green vehicles. These are electric vehicles, liquid petroleum gas, fuel cell vehicle, hybrid vehicles and natural gas. Our assessment, at this moment, not cast in concrete because, over time, things will change - is that the mass deployment of electric vehicles, at least in the short term, may be limited by the recharging mechanism. This is because they need to be charged overnight at a recharging facility. I think it will take some time before we can have such a network implemented. So the role of the electric vehicle may be hampered by this lack of infrastructure. 6.30 pm As far as LPG vehicles are concerned, my Ministry, in fact, has decided not to promote LPG, because of the risk of fire and explosion. So we are not going to promote LPG, unless there is a breakthrough in the technology. The third area mentioned by Prof Low is the fuel cell vehicle.”
“Malaysian vehicles with black smoke emission exceeding 70 HSU (Hartridge Smoke Unit) - I am told it is the measurement of smoke - are turned back to Malaysia. We do not even want to fine them and allow them to pollute our air. We tell them, "Your case is so bad. Please make a U-turn and go back." For those between 50 and 70 HSU, yes, it is an offence but not too excessive. We will give them a compounded fine on the spot because, after that, we would not know where to find them. For the first offence, they are fined $150; second offence is $300 and subsequent offence is $500. Many of them do take corrective action after the first offence because it is not cheap to pay $300 and $500 for emission of black smoke. Is the enforcement action effective? I think so, because the number of bookings has been on the rise. For Singapore vehicles, five years ago, in 1996, we booked 6,900 cases and, last year, it had gone up to 16,000. In the case of Malaysian vehicles, we see the same increase from 3,500, five years ago, to 9,100 last year. So you can see that we are serious about enforcement, and as a result of this enforcement action taken by my Ministry, the percentage of smoky vehicles, as a percentage of the total population, has come down. We conduct random survey. We station officers at certain locations and they count the number of vehicles going past and the number of vehicles emitting black smoke and they compute the percentage of smoky vehicles. In 1996, among the Singapore vehicles, 4% were smoky vehicles. Last year, it dropped to 1.1%. So we are seeing a significant drop of 4% to 1.1%. In the case of Malaysian vehicles, the decline is even more dramatic, from 16.2%, five years ago, to 3.”
“So the reliability is not an issue because what you see is what actually happened on the ground. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked whether this evidence is admissible in court. Sir, I do not know. So far, in fact, no offender, having seen the video, has decided to contest us. Because when they see the video, they will see all the black smoke coming out, and they put up their hand and say, "Yes, I admit I ought to be fined." So far, we do not have a single case in which somebody, after looking at the video, still maintains that he or she is innocent. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked whether we locate those video cameras at up slope. Sir, I can assure him that this is not the case. Because if you were to look at the video, you can see very clearly whether the car is moving horizontally or moving uphill. I can assure him that there is not a single case of offence involving a vehicle moving up slope. I am very sure about this because my officials gave me their assurance on this. In fact, when I looked at some of the videos myself, I was convinced that the emission was really bad. It was certainly more than 50-70 HSU because the black smoke was so clearly visible. Mr Ang Mong Seng made a very good point. He asked whether we will allow free inspection of these videos. I am happy to say, yes. Indeed, this is the practice. When an offender receives a notice of offence from us, he is welcome to come to ENV to have a cup of coffee, look at the video and convince himself whether he wants to contest the case. Sir, Mr Ang Mong Seng also asked whether our enforcement action is applicable to foreign vehicles. By that, I presume he is referring to Malaysian vehicles. Let me share with Members of the House on what we have done, as far as Malaysian vehicles are concerned.”
“For example, we have upgraded the emission standards for SO2, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and the unburnt hydrocarbon regularly. On 1st January this year, we introduced the Euro II emission standards to make sure that, over time, it will get better. The second strategy we have deployed so far is the introduction of low sulphur diesel to reduce both the SO2 emission and the particulate emission. Since March 1999, which is about two years ago, sulphur in diesel has been reduced to 0.05%, in terms of weight, and over time, we may even look at the ultra-low sulphur diesel which will be as low as 0.01%, when the need arises. Sir, our third strategy is very much the point brought up by Mr Ang Mong Seng, ie, enforcement against smoky vehicles. There is no point having very stringent standards if we do not enforce these standards. As mentioned by Mr Ang Mong Seng, in the past, enforcement on the spot did create some problems for other motor vehicles. So in August 1999, my Ministry decided to make use of digital video cameras. We sited these cameras in certain locations. Each time, if we see a vehicle emitting black smoke which is highly visible, we would take a recording. The recording is then transmitted back to the Ministry headquarters where some of my senior officials will sit in front of the PC and look at the recording. They will then make a determination on whether that particular offender ought to be let off, or given a warning letter, or indeed given a fine. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked, firstly, whether these photos are reliable. Sir, these are not photos. These are real video, moving pictures. So you can see a vehicle moving on the road and you see all the black smoke coming out.”
“Sir, as I mentioned earlier, the air quality in Singapore is good. We monitor very closely a few key pollutants. These are sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, ozone and the particulate matter, both, what we call, PM 10 and PM 2.5, depending on the size of the particulates. Sir, all these air pollutants are well within international limit for clean air determined by the US EPA and the World Health Organisation. My Ministry will continue to monitor the quality of the air to make sure that it will continue to stay within this limit. But having said that, there are two air pollutants which my Ministry is paying extra attention because the level of pollution is on the rise and we could reach the limit in the near future. These are SO2 and particulate matter. Basically, the three sources of pollution are - vehicles, industries and power generation. Sir, several Members have touched on the issue of vehicular pollution. Prof. Low Seow Chay asked when are we going to do more to put in place rules and regulations so that we can try out more energy efficient vehicles, such as the CNG and the fuel cell vehicles. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked about enforcement operations, appeal procedures, and so on, and also enforcement on foreign vehicles, mainly Malaysian vehicles. Sir, vehicular pollution accounts for 50% of the particulate matters. 50% of all the dark smoke, and so on, comes from the vehicle. Our top priority is to reduce the emission of particulate matter, generated mostly by diesel vehicles - buses, taxis, lorries, and so on. We deploy a set of strategies to contain such emissions. Firstly, we impose very stringent emission standards.”
“Incineration of solid waste may be a better alternative than landfills because we are a land scarce nation. However, the incineration of solid waste leads to the emission of greenhouse gases and without very well utilisation of the heat generated because of the composition of the wet garbage and the combustion process. We should adopt strategies like waste minimisation so as to allow a higher percentage of wastes to be recovered and change the people's habits of generating wet garbage. One of the ways of reducing garbage generation is to charge garbage for collection by weight. I heard that the Ministry has some proposals sometime ago. But did the Ministry seriously consider charging collection of garbage by weight? We can also educate the people on the use of things like biodegradable products, for example, biodegradable bags, instead of using all the PVC products. The recent call by the NGOs to use less PVC carrying bags for shopping is one of the programmes which is worth supporting. Is the Government planning to carry out an education programme in schools, in conjunction with the Ministry of Education, to educate the people on waste minimisation? Using polyfoam disposable cutlery in canteens and hawker centres is one of the greenhouse gas-unfriendly policies. On the one hand, we had launched it many years ago to reduce dependence on foreign workers, and also it may be more hygienic in food handling; on the other hand, the disposable cutlery will be eventually incinerated which could lead to the emission of greenhouse gases. If we still have a choice, we should consider abandoning the idea of using disposable cutlery for the sake of reducing greenhouse gases.”
“The Government should take action in helping and encouraging this kind of project. We should also try to revise some of our rules and regulations to make sure that we do not obstruct greenhouse gas-friendly projects by the supply of greenhouse gas-friendly fuel, vehicles or equipment. Improvement of energy conversion efficiency will also allow the reduction of greenhouse gases from every unit of energy which is generated. We should try to encourage the replacement of certain prime mover engines, power generators which have poorer overall energy efficiency. Purely from the energy efficiency point of view, say, for example, a diesel car will be more efficient than a gasoline-driven car, though it may create some unwanted pollutive problems. An electric vehicle will be more efficient than a gasoline vehicle because the power generation plant that supplies energy to the electric vehicle is more efficient than a gasoline engine running on the road. Should the Government lay the groundwork, like rules and regulations, for the people to try out the various energy efficient vehicles or cars on the roads? For example, should we have rules and regulations or incentives for the people who try out electric vehicles, newer type of prime movers for vehicles, like the CNG vehicle which has not been tried out in Singapore (but it is an old technology favourable to the environment), fuel-cell powered vehicles which are going to be launched, cylinder or gasoline injection vehicles which are already in the market? So for all these vehicles, if we have some sort of rules and regulations or incentives to encourage the promotion of their use, certainly we are working towards the improvement in our effort towards the reduction of greenhouse gases.”
“In fact, we intend to set up the Newater Visitors Centre at Bedok centre - this would be ready by March next year - so that members of the public, grassroots members, students, and so on, can be brought to the plant, so that at least they get to know more about the quality of water and the technology that we are deploying. Sir, with that, I believe I have addressed most, if not all, of the concerns raised by Members. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, on global warming, carbon dioxide is one of the most significant greenhouse gases that causes global warming due to the amount of its emission. The under-developed and the developing countries pointed fingers to the developed countries for causing global warming and asked the developed countries to pay for the clean-up and subsequent cost of the control of future greenhouse gas emission. Singapore is not one of the signatories of the World Climate Conference and is also not classified as a developed country. We still have the responsibility to satisfy our conscience as a responsible world citizen. There are many things we could do as a responsible world citizen regarding the greenhouse gas emission. I would like to ask the Minister about the measures we are taking to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. All carbons containing fuel generate greenhouse gases after combustion. Do we have plans to encourage the use of alternate fuel with lower carbon contents? It is possible to replace heavy diesel by light diesel, gasoline by methanol or ethanol, normal liquid fuel by LPG and natural gas. The recent private attempt of testing the idea of replacing diesel engines in buses by compressed natural gas is a viable project towards the reduction of greenhouse gas.”
“In that way, we make sure that Singapore in the long term, not just the next 20, 50 years, but maybe the next 500, 1,000 years, will continue to be able to maximise every single drop of water coming into the water system to make sure that we will always have enough water for the economy, the society and the population. Mr Kenneth Chen asked what if Malaysia were to cut off water supply. Sir, I do not think this would happen because there is a water agreement honoured by both sides for many years. Water supply beyond 2061, in fact, is now being discussed, as you have heard from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. So let me emphasise again that the whole purpose of Newater is to add to the security of water supply in Singapore, but it is not our intention to be self-sufficient as far as the water supply is concerned. Prof. Low also asked how do we intend to keep pace with the technology. What we are doing basically is to continue to work closely with the suppliers and the other users, bearing in mind that we are not the only user in the world of the membrane technology. We will continue to keep in touch with them and share experience regarding the use of the technology. Whenever there is a promising solution, our intention is to conduct a pilot project, just like the way we have done so with Newater. In this way, hopefully, we will be able to continue to keep ourselves up to date. Prof. Low also asked whether we have any plan to educate the public. Mr Kenneth Chen also emphasised the need to continue to promote the message of water conservation. Yes, I agree with both of them.”
“Our target is to commission both plants by the end of next year. 6.00 pm Sir, some Members also asked about our long-term plans, in terms of quantity and application, whether we will now have a situation of having excess Newater, whether we still need to have desalination, whether we still need to buy water from Malaysia, and so on. Let me put this discussion in proper perspective. Newater is to reclaim used water. The technology of Newater cannot create water but it can reclaim water. Therefore, for the system to work, you look at the water system in Singapore as a whole system. If there is no water input into the system, Newater cannot work because there will be no water to reclaim. In other words, we need to continue to inject water into the water system either through collection of rainfall or taking water from Malaysia or through desalination, so that water reclamation can continue to work. What we are saying is that over a longer period, with a bigger population, we may not be able to secure enough water supply on a perpetual basis. What this means is that by investing in Newater technology, we are now applying a multiplier factor into the system. Take, for example, if we are able to reclaim 20% of the water used in our water system, we will be able to enhance the capacity of clean water by 25%. If we are able to increase this reclaimed rate to 40%, we will be able to enhance the capacity by 67%. What this means is that every drop of water we collect from rainfall, import from Malaysia, maybe from Indonesia or through desalination, we will be able to use a drop of water more than once.”