Louis Ng Kok Kwang
Singapore
“It does not matter whether the report was made to the Police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether an individual who reports an offence under the Bill to the Police will be similarly protected by the whistle-blowing protections under section 53?”
“In my Adjournment Motion six years ago, I shared the story of Emma, a single unwed parent who came to see me at my Meet-the-People Sessions, together with her two-month-old daughter. They were both living in a shelter. As I shared previously, when I asked why Emma did not shed a tear, she told me that she no longer had any tears left.”
“It is not just Nee Soon East cleaners who pay kickbacks. This, again, is a widespread problem that we have not done enough to detect and tackle. To tackle this more effectively, we need to treat kickbacks as seriously as corruption. We need our laws to have a more deterrent effect to have any chance of wiping out kickbacks.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for answering my cut on second-hand smoke. And I am sure he expects me to clarify further. But I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there is no current technology to catch someone smoking at home and, so, because of that we cannot legislate a ban.”
“Madam, for years, I have spoken up repeatedly in this House, calling for the Government to take action to protect the lives of fellow Singaporeans from second-hand smoke. I have spoken up so much that Senior Minister of State Amy Khor once said that she is immune to me already. But on a more serious note, this is a serious issue.”
“We should end the discrimination and allow them to qualify for the PPHS. Mandate Sterilisation of Pet Cats I have spent a good part of my life calling for HDB to allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats. Many have called for this and I am glad the Government has finally changed our policies and allow the keeping of cats in HDB flats.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,801 lines we hold for Louis Ng Kok Kwang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 37.
“Is there a principled difference between workers on delivery or ride-hail services platforms compared to platforms of other services? Will the Ministry look into expanding the definition of "platform operators" and "platform workers" in the Bill to cover all types of platform services at a later date? If so, does the Ministry have a timeline for reviewing the scope of the definition? In light of the rising number of self-employed persons who use online matching platforms to provide other types of services, I urge the Government to extend the protections under this Bill to cover all types of platform services. My second point is on remedies available for platform workers who encounter discrimination and unfair dismissal. I welcome the announcement of platform work associations which will have legal mandate to represent platform workers to address issues like fairer payment terms. While this is a good step, it may not go far enough to protect platform workers from unfair dismissal or discrimination by the platform operators. Platform workers are not employees and do not receive the protections afforded by the Employment Act, the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, the Workplace Fairness Legislation and the Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP). This Bill does not appear to prohibit platform operators from unfairly removing a platform worker from the platform service or making decisions which discriminate against the platform worker. Food delivery riders have complained about being unfairly penalised, warned or suspended for food spillage or other customer complaints. Private hire vehicle drivers have complained about wrongful forfeiture of incentives and wrongful removal from the platform.”
“Sir, the Platform Workers Bill seeks to strengthen protections for platform workers. I stand in support of the Bill. I thank the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for conducting a public consultation on the proposed changes and for publishing its responses to the feedback received. I have three points of clarification to raise. My first point is on the scope of platform services covered under the Bill. Currently, the Bill only covers self-employed persons who work with platform operators to provide two types of services, namely, delivery or ride-hail services. It does not cover self-employed persons who work with platform operators to provide other types of services. I understand that the Bill already protects more than 90% of self-employed persons who use online matching platforms through its coverage of delivery or ride-hail services. That said, the number of self-employed persons who use online matching platforms to provide other types of services is also growing. These services include domestic cleaning, beauty, therapeutic and caregiving services. For example, when a domestic cleaning platform acquired a local cleaning company with 60 employees in 2021, it announced that it would be adding 1,000 more workers to its platform within one year. A chief executive officer (CEO) of a medical and caregiving platform service reported that between 2018 and 2021, the company observed a 10 times growth in demand for homecare, which would translate into a spike in the caregivers using its platform. Given that the Bill already covers 90% of workers, can the Senior Minister of State share the rationale for not going further and covering all platform services?”
“There is some uncertainty as to how this mechanism will operate given the flexibility afforded to EMA in imposing the rate recoverable. Section 19B(3) of the EMA Act permits EMA to make a "reasonable estimation" of the amount of costs that will be incurred when imposing such a rate when such amounts are yet to be determined. Section 19B(8) allows EMA to retain any excess costs recovered and apply such excess to other energy initiatives. Further, costs can also be recovered from any consumer of energy utilities under section 19B(4)(iv). Can the Minister clarify how the cost recovery mechanism will be implemented? How will EMA derive its "reasonable estimation" of the costs that will be incurred? In the event that the estimation is inaccurate, what are the mechanisms to correct the mis-estimation? Finally, in recovering costs from any consumers of energy utilities, does EMA have the power to consider broader factors such as the cost burden on consumers and proportionality of cost recovery? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“These powers are set out under the amended section 20A of the Electricity Act and section 38B of the Gas Act. The powers on the installation, use and access to key infrastructure are broad. EMA may even direct the licensee and any person to enter into an agreement with each other on the maintenance or use of the infrastructure. If parties are unable to agree on the terms and are unable to enter into an agreement, a party can request that the Minister for Trade and Industry establish an Appeal Panel to determine reasonable terms. This allows the Government very exceptional powers to determine the terms of a private agreement between two parties. During the public consultation, respondents asked about the safeguards to minimise the impact on investor confidence, reduce the burden on property owners and moderate costs for consumers. Respondents also asked about mechanisms other than EMA directives to facilitate shared access. EMA stated that it will only use directives if it considers such access necessary and in the public interest to ensure energy security and reliability. Can the Minister share whether it will consult with parties on the potential costs and commercial risks to the parties before making such directives? Even where access is necessary and in the public interest, will EMA consider using other less restrictive measures before making directives as a last resort? In the event that loss is suffered by any party due to a term that was agreed under EMA's directive, can Minister clarify whether it is a defence or mitigating factor for the party to claim that the term was entered into because of EMA's direction or determined by an appeal panel. My final point is on the cost recovery mechanism for energy initiatives in section 19B of the EMA Act.”
“My second point is on the establishment of the CGE. During the public consultation, EMA clarified that the centralised gas procurement regime will only apply to gas users from the power sector such as generation companies. EMA said that non-power sector consumers such as industrial gas users will be excluded. Legacy gas contracts will also be excluded. Can Minister share what percentage of gas procurement will be covered under the centralised procurement regime after excluding non-power sector consumers and legacy gas contracts? The rationale of stabilising gas supply through centralised gas procurement is undermined if the excluded non-power sector consumers and legacy gas contracts form a substantial portion of gas demand. Can the Minister also share more details on the CGE’s pricing framework and how the contracts between the CGE and generation companies will be negotiated? MTI and EMA stated during the public consultation that the amendments will empower EMA to introduce gas procurement terms on generation companies such as minimum gas contracting obligations to ensure they contract sufficient fuel. Will these gas procurement terms be consistent across the board or will the CGE be imposing differentiated terms based on independently negotiated contracts with the generation companies? EMA has also stated that one of its aims is to keep gas prices low and competitive. Can the Minister share how prices will be kept competitive when there is only one central gas supplier to generation companies and generation companies no longer have gas price competitiveness from varied suppliers? My third point is on EMA’s power to make directions allowing access by licensees to electricity and gas supplies.”
“Sir, the Bill will strengthen our regulatory regime for energy markets. As part of Singapore’s strategy to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, this Bill is a positive move that supports decarbonisation whilst ensuring energy security and keeping power costs competitive for Singapore. I would like to take this opportunity to also commend MTI and EMA for holding a public consultation on the proposed amendments. I have four points for clarification to raise. My first point is on the creation of the FEF and the initial injection of $5 billion. The FEF introduced during Budget 2024 is intended to support our transition towards low-carbon energy sources and provide important funding for a more sustainable energy infrastructure. Can the Minister share more details on how this sum of $5 billion was derived? Can the Minister also share the time frame for the utilisation of the initial $5 billion sum? The cost of mitigation and adaptation is likely to rise steeply as the impact of climate change intensifies over the next century. The cost estimates vary. One estimate by the McKinsey Global Institute in 2022 suggested that $9.2 trillion in annual average spending on physical assets alone will be required to transform the global economy to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. When does the Government expect to have to make the next injection? Does the Government anticipate making smaller and more frequent future injections or relatively infrequent but large injections? EMA also announced in its media release that the Government will ensure prudent use of the funds and oversight over projects. Can the Minister provide more details on the safeguards that will be put in place to ensure transparency and public accountability on the use of the funds in the future by the EMA?”
“Let me now end with a quote, as always, in the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "Earth provides enough to satisfy every person's needs, but not every person's greed". Let us treasure our precious resources and, together, tackle this throwaway culture. Sir, you have no idea how much it means for me to say the next few words, how much it means for our extremely hardworking Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee members and my Legislative Assistants, for the passionate food donors and dedicated food charities and community groups, how much it means for those struggling to have three meals a day and how much it means for our planet. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.] 2.54 pm”
“I hope that the learnings from this Bill will form the foundation for future improvements in our food donation landscape and I hope we will see an update in the next few years. As I worked on this Bill, I was constantly reminded of my late grandmother. Actually, I constantly nag people about not wasting food because my grandmother constantly nagged me when I was young to not waste food. One of my tasks at family meals when I was a little boy was to scoop rice for everyone. I always remember opening the rice cooker and seeing my grandmother's food there. She was always one meal behind the rest of the family. When we were having dinner, she was having the leftovers from lunch. After dinner, she stored the leftover food overnight to eat the next day. For her, and for many of our Pioneer Generation, even the smallest scrap of food waste is unthinkable. My grandmother did not even want to waste gas to warm up her food. She warmed up her food using the steam in the rice cooker as we cooked our rice. We now live in a time when food is more abundant as compared to the past. Most Singaporeans not only have more than enough food available, we are spoilt for choice, with food from all corners of the world being imported into Singapore daily. But let us not forget that there are also many Singaporeans who are not sure what or when their next meal will be. I hope this Bill will bring back the spirit of the Pioneer Generation, the true champions against food waste, and cultivate these habits in our younger generations. Sir, I hope I have answered all the clarifications that Members have raised and I again thank everyone for your strong support and for your very good questions. I would be glad to answer any further clarifications.”
“I promise to continue to file Parliamentary Questions on this and to continue to push the Government to, as always, do more and, before I forget, do more, more quickly. Sir, let me conclude. It has been an absolutely rewarding four-year journey in drafting this Bill. As Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out, this Bill can be a catalyst for positive change in how we, as a society, approach food waste and food security. It is about developing a more sustainable and compassionate society. I hope we become more compassionate. I sincerely hope we can achieve what Ms Jean See shared in her speech, that this "Bill is the gamechanger that can help to dismantle the stigma surrounding food support while giving food-insecure families the confidence to benefit from food support that is dignified, sustained, adequate and enriching". I hope we become more sustainable. Miss Rachel Ong shared about how reducing food waste is a nationwide effort and requires a society-wide change. We have to change. I have to stress that the key point of this Bill is not just about urging people to donate food but to really have people rethink our throwaway culture. Think about not wasting food in the first place. Change our habits. It is scary that food waste is so ingrained in our society now. Some of the businesses were telling me that they already factored food waste into their business costs. Do not need to worry about throwing food away. They already factored it in. The work of the Committee and the Government is far from done. This Bill is only a starting point to create an effective legal and policy framework for the food donation ecosystem in Singapore.”
“Mr Don Wee suggested fostering partnerships between donors and reputable charities to ensure proper distribution and use of donated food. These are good questions. Encouraging food donation requires tackling a much broader set of issues than just liability. As Ms Poh Li San rightly noted, there is much work to be done after we introduce this Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. We will need to encourage businesses and supermarkets to come onboard as examples for other food suppliers and operators. We will also need to increase the number of volunteers, food collection points, donation drop-off nodes and distribution points. Stronger partnerships between food rescue groups, Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres will also help in strengthening food donation networks. As Mr Edward Chia suggested, the CDCs also have an important role to play in terms of establishing community-based redistribution networks. I feel like I am just shooting arrows here, but the point is that many people have to come onboard this journey for this to be a successful journey. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is important, but, again, it is just one part of a larger picture. I hope the Government will continue working with businesses and food charities to look into what else we can do to encourage food donation. As Ms Joan Pereira suggested, the Government should also consider providing the administrative and infrastructural support to help organisations get started on this journey of donation. MSF's Food Charities Work Group that I have mentioned many times in this speech is an important platform for such conversations. I should add that following this Bill, I will continue to speak up about tackling food waste. This is not the end of my journey.”
“As for donors who require legal assistance, there are existing avenues for legal support, including legal clinics for individuals and the Singapore Association of Trade and Commerce, which provides legal support for businesses. I will now talk about support and help for recipients of donated food. Mr Yip asked if the Bill offers legal protection for donors who unintentionally provide food that does not align with a recipient's dietary needs. The Bill does provide this legal protection as long as the four conditions are met. Mr Keith Chua suggested that we introduce channels of guidance for food-insecure communities to assist them in making the right choices and advising them on their rights. The usual channels for legal aid and assistance, including the Legal Aid Bureau and Pro Bono SG, are available. On helping food insecure communities to make the right choices, our social service agencies, food charities and Government agencies play an important role in helping those they serve make informed choices while respecting their autonomy to decide for themselves. What Mr Chua suggested is very much needed and public education is key to this Bill. Finally, on public education and partnerships. Waiving liability is just one part of the food donation picture. Miss Rachel Ong spoke about how public education alongside the Bill's implementation is key. I could not agree more with Miss Ong's point that rescued food is not meant only for the needy, but for all of us. The rest of society must adopt a similar mindset for food waste reduction efforts in Singapore for it to be significant and effective. Mr Gan Thiam Poh noted that there is a need for education and understanding, especially over social and cultural norms on food wastage.”
“The Committee considered and consulted the public on requiring food charities to be certified, accredited and undergo training. While the proposal received significant public support, smaller food charities and community groups expressed concerns that the accreditation and training requirements may hamper their work. Smaller groups shared that their volunteer pool may be individuals who volunteer on an ad hoc basis. These volunteers may be dissuaded if they have to undergo compulsory training. The groups also shared that they may not have the resources to meet the accreditation requirements. After considerable debate – and it is a tough balancing act – the Committee decided that requiring accreditation to enjoy liability protections may again have the unintended effect of reducing food donations in Singapore. That said, voluntary training and certification are steps that may be good for the Charities Food Work Group to explore further. The Government can also provide the much needed assistance on this. Mr Edward Chia had shared about the importance of accreditation and suggested that the Government provide grants to cover costs associated with adopting these standards and conducting necessary training. His suggestion of Enterprise Singapore's Quality and Standards division developing a standard specifically tailored to our local context, ensuring it meets the unique needs of our community, should also be looked into. As I mentioned earlier, a good start which can be done very soon would be for SFA to do a briefing session for food donors on the SFA guidelines. That would be a good starting point. Lastly, on this section, Ms Ng Ling Ling asked about mediation mechanisms and legal assistance for small donors. Mediation is always a possibility for civil disputes.”
“As Ms Jean See shared, this could help incentivise businesses to institutionalise food donation activities. We studied these tax deduction suggestions. We put this through a public consultation as well and an overwhelming majority of the public supports this. However, there are currently challenges with accurately valuing food for the purpose of tax deduction and preventing any potential abuse. After exploring these options with the Ministry of Finance, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, MSF and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, the committee concluded that these financial incentives have to be studied further and can be considered for future implementation. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Don Wee and Ms Ng Ling Ling also raised other suggestions, including public recognition programmes for food donors and encouraging food donors to purchase liability insurance as an extra layer of protection. These, again, are all good suggestions. I hope the Government will continue to study the possibility of additional support that can be extended to food donors. The Charities Food Work Group that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua chairs, may be a good platform for these suggestions to be explored further. For instance, while liability insurance may be difficult to mandate because it may not be feasible for smaller players. There is scope to explore this option for larger players. The Government can take steps to encourage liability insurance and monitor the take-up rate of such insurance. Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested mandatory training programmes or certification for frequent food donors. He suggested that SFA develop such programmes. Mr Don Wee, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Jean See, similarly, suggested training programmes.”
“Mr Yip Hon Weng, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Jean See and Ms Hazel Poa suggested tax benefits for food donation. Mr Yip Hon Weng also suggested subsidies for logistical costs and Ms Hazel Poa suggested tax incentives for transport or platform companies who assist in providing food pick-up and delivery services for larger F&B enterprises. Mr Yip Hon Weng raised examples of tech-enabled inventory management that receives substantial government support and recognition in Japan and Australia. These were suggestions that were commonly raised during our consultation. We heard from many businesses that some additional financial support from the Government could make it easier for them to donate food. One possible avenue for support is to give subsidies or tax incentives for capital-heavy equipment, such as blast chillers. These chillers can be used to quickly freeze cooked food, extending its shelf life beyond the normal four-hour mark and making it easier to donate. Many businesses are already doing this and what would help further is to incorporate guidelines on the use of blast chillers into the expanded SFA guidelines that I called for earlier. These guidelines will help provide some certainty to food donors. Businesses and food charities also shared with us that refrigerated trucks would be very useful for supporting food donations and hope to receive subsidies for purchasing these. All these suggestions will help food donors and, very importantly, help to ensure safer and more efficient handling of donated food. Another suggestion raised, is tax deduction for donated food. As Mr Yip Hon Weng noted, this is currently being done in other countries, including the US and Italy.”
“As Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out, we need to take a balanced approach on this. However, the suggestions that members have raised are all good ideas that MSE, SFA and MSF should look into. I hope MSE, SFA and MSF will continue to engage the industry on how they can meet the four conditions and provide the support needed. Next, I will talk about support and help for our food donors. I fully agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua that food charities augment the support provided by the Government. Food charities truly embody the spirit of the "many helping hands" approach that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua spoke about. They are our unsung heroes and I thank them for the work they do behind the scenes to ensure that families never go hungry or without nutritious food. Businesses who donate food are equally important too and we should also support them. Ms Ng Ling Ling spoke about how businesses would like the help of legislation that reduces the fear of liability and reputational damage so that they can meet their societal responsibilities. I spoke to many businesses, including restaurants, hotels, bakeries, supermarkets and merchants. I can assure the public that food donation is not just a matter of checking off a corporate social responsibility obligation. Many of the businesses I spoke with, see food donation as one way of giving back to the community. The liability protection is one way of helping these businesses and food charities do good. But as Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested, liability protection essentially removes a barrier but we must now provide active encouragement. Members have raised many good ideas for further incentivising and supporting food donation.”
“For instance, they can do so through text messages. We are mindful that mandating labelling might be too onerous for some small donors and we do not want this Bill to have the unintended effect of turning food donors away. However, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng had just mentioned in his speech, I understand MSE is considering mandating labelling and I look forward to the Food Safety and Security Bill. Lastly, on this section, Mr Don Wee suggested other methods for ensuring accountability, including maintaining records of donation, requiring reporting on food donation, regular audits and publication of donation data and impact reports. Mr Don Wee's suggestion on requiring reporting on food donation is a next step that the Government should seriously consider. The mandatory requirements on segregation and reporting of food waste came into effect this year for industrial and commercial buildings that generate large amount of food waste. As a further step, I hope the Government will look into food donation reporting requirements for these big players as well. It is a good suggestion from Mr Don Wee. The Government should also look into the suggestion and ideas by Mr Edward Chia about using technology to track and manage food donation more effectively. Mr Edward Chia gave good examples, which follow on nicely from Mr Don Wee's suggestion. Apart from the four conditions, the Committee however decided against having some of the mandatory requirements Mr Don Wee raised as they might be a burden for some donors, especially the smaller ones. We intended for these conditions to be reasonable to meet and not any more than what a food donor would already be expected to do before they donate food.”
“I hope SFA will also consider doing briefing sessions for food donors to ensure food donors understand the guidelines and clarify any doubts they have. SFA should also make these guidelines more easily accessible to the public. As mentioned in my Second Reading speech, complying with these guidelines is one of the conditions to enjoy the waiver of liability. Before I end this section, I should address another point that Mr Keith Chua made about providing guidelines on what can and what cannot be donated. This should actually be included into the SFA guidelines as well. It is a good suggestion. During our consultations with the hotels, some of the hotels actually mentioned that they already have these guidelines on what they will donate and what they will not donate. That could be a good starting point of including this current list into the existing SFA guidelines. As another example, Food from the Heart also have guidelines on what bread they will accept for donation and what bread they would not accept. For example, bread with fillings would not be accepted by Food from the Heart. Again, we have a starting point in terms of developing guidelines on what can and cannot be donated. Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested that we consider mandating information labels on donated cooked food. NTUC FairPrice also asked about the role of packaging and labelling in meeting the conditions on communicating handling requirements and expiry date. Properly packaging and labelling donated food are examples of how a donor can meet the conditions on communicating handling requirements and time limits for consuming donated food. There are other ways that a donor can communicate handling requirements and time limits to recipients.”
“The Committee had considered this suggestion. The Committee decided, that good faith would introduce too much uncertainty for food donors on when they will enjoy protection, when uncertainty from the risk of legal liability is the precise problem this Bill is trying to address. As I shared, the survey by RAS found that 80% of surveyed restaurants were unsure whether the law will adequately protect businesses, even with the express waiver of liability. Including good faith as a requirement, while it sounds good and I understand where Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is coming from, we feel it might cause even greater concerns for businesses and undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve. The Committee decided that four clear conditions that donors can fulfil, to know that they enjoy liability protection, will provide responsible donors with certainty and peace of mind that is very much needed. Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for guidelines for donors to follow to prevent unintentional non-compliance with standards. He also suggested having resources to be made available on proper handling. Mr Don Wee and Ms Hany Soh also spoke about having guidelines, best practices and safety standards. SFA has, in 2021, published the Guidelines for Social Service Agencies and community groups involved in food preparation and distribution activities for charitable causes. These guidelines would be relevant in considering if the four conditions for a waiver of liability have been met. I urge SFA to expand these guidelines to also cover food donors, such as restaurants, hotels and bakeries. This will provide them with the much-needed guidance. I also urge organisations to familiarise themselves with these very good guidelines and strictly adhere to them.”
“During our consultation, one restaurant owner shared with us that some cleaners had packed leftover food from the restaurant to take home with them. The food had included delicacies, such as prawns. Seeing how good the food was, the recipient kept the food for the next day. The food likely went bad and the recipient suffered from food poisoning. After that incident, the restaurant did not dare to allow the leftover food to be packed and taken back. Of course, in this situation, the restaurant would also have to inform the recipient of the handling requirements and the time limit for consumption and comply with all written laws on food safety and hygiene to enjoy protection from liability. However, this is a real story that shows how food that was safe and suitable at the time of donation, might still cause injury not through any fault of the donor. Next, Assoc Prof James Lim referred to the four-hour rule under the NEA guidelines, which limit the consumption time of food from the time it is cooked. He asked whether the fourth condition, requiring a donor to comply with existing written law on food safety and hygiene, include this four-hour rule. I should clarify that the four-hour rule is not just an NEA guideline. Regulation 13A of the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations prohibit caterers from selling or supplying food for consumption after four hours from when the food was first prepared. Breaching this regulation is an offence. The four-hour rule is a written law on food safety and hygiene and must be complied with to enjoy liability protection under this Bill. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also suggested that in addition to the four conditions, we should also require that food donors act in good faith in order to enjoy liability protection.”
“Food safety was a non-negotiable component in all our consultations and in drafting this Bill. Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about how the Bill should not be misused by those with ill intentions. As Mr Gan Thiam Poh pointed out, a key challenge is ensuring that the liability protections are appropriately scoped. After much debate, the Committee came up with the four conditions that I have shared. At the second public consultation, food donation groups asked how it will be determined whether food is unsafe and unsuitable. NTUC FairPrice, similarly, asked whether supermarkets can refer to established standards under food safety legislation to determine safety and suitability for consumption. The existing interpretations of whether food is unsafe and unsuitable, under section 2C and 2D of the Sale of Food Act, will apply in determining whether food is unsafe and unsuitable under this Bill. For example, under section 2D of the Sale of Food Act, "food is deemed unsuitable if the food is damaged, deteriorated or perished to an extent that affects its reasonable intended use. Food is unsuitable if it has packaging that is damaged, deteriorated, perished or contaminated to the extent of affecting the food's reasonable intended use." Existing food safety legislation and case law on food safety will also apply. Mr Keith Chua asked about when recipients might fall ill from consuming donated food, if the food was safe and suitable at the point of donation. Despite the best efforts of food donors to ensure that the donated food is safe and suitable, a recipient may still fall ill if the food was not properly handled, not properly stored and not consumed within the appropriate time.”
“The survey conducted by the RAS on the Bill also support this, with 60% of respondents saying that they are very or somewhat likely to participate in food donation if this Bill is passed. This sentiment is echoed by Mr Dellen Soh from the RAS who shared that "Restaurants do want to donate excess food to reduce food waste and help our communities. But the very real risk of liability from donated food has a chilling effect for many restaurants." Finally, on this section, Mr Zulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether the Bill covers the waiver of liability only in cases of death or personal injury from consuming the donated food. He asked whether illnesses or other physical harms are covered. For the purposes of this Bill, personal injury includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition. This is similar to the definition adopted under the Civil Law Act, the Limitation Act and the Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act. As such, illnesses and physical harms are covered. I will, now, move on to clarifications on the four conditions to enjoy liability protection. I thank Mr Vikram Nair for his view that the four conditions are both rigorous and reasonable. I also thank Ms Hazel Poa for sharing that these conditions are reasonable and should not pose an excessive impediment to food donors. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng spoke about how ensuring donated food is safe and suitable for consumption is a shared responsibility among Government, food donors, community organisations and recipients of food donations. I cannot emphasise enough how this must be a shared responsibility. I also cannot emphasise enough that food safety cannot be compromised.”
“If the monetary donation is provided from members of the public and not the recipient of the food, the food donation still enjoys liability protection under the Bill. However, if the recipient is the one providing the monetary donation, this is akin to a pay-as-you-wish arrangement, which will not be protected under the Bill. The Committee wanted to draw a very clear line on situations where the Bill applies as the focus of this Bill is on food donation for a charitable, benevolent and philanthropic purpose. I should also point out that where food donation is to needy families, it is fairly unlikely that the recipients will be asked to pay for the food. NTUC FairPrice also raised a hypothetical situation of a supermarket paying a food surplus management company to redistribute the donated food to the community. The donation in this scenario will still enjoy liability protections. This is because no payment is received by the supermarket for the food given. Next, Mr Keith Chua asked how the Committee determined that absolving donors of liability will increase the food available for donation. He also asked about the identity of potential donors who are currently reluctant to donate. The Committee consulted extensively with restaurants, hotels, social enterprises, primary food producers, food processing companies, distributors, wholesalers, food logistics, transport and delivery provider companies, supermarkets and merchants, bakeries and non-governmental organisations. These stakeholders shared their direct experiences on how liability concerns have a chilling effect on potential food donors, including hotels, restaurants, bakeries and supermarkets.”
“That said, the Committee acknowledges that it may be more difficult for donors or groups involved in community fridges to meet the four conditions since there might not be any direct communication or even face-to-face meetings between the donor and recipient. For community fridges, there are times we might not even know who the food donor is. Food rescue initiatives, on the other hand, can more easily meet the four conditions. For the past few years, we have a monthly food rescue initiative in Nee Soon East. I have spoken to the team managing the food rescue and we are confident we can meet the four conditions. Next, during the first public consultation, the Committee surveyed the public on exempting logistics providers from liability. The proposal received strong public support, with around three-quarters of respondents agreeing that logistics providers should enjoy protection from civil and criminal liability. The Committee ultimately decided to take an incremental approach and waive liability only for food donors for now and not logistics providers. However, if our initial legislative efforts are successful in encouraging food donation, future amendments to expand the law to cover logistics providers is a possibility. Next, on the definition of food donation, the Committee wanted to ensure that the focus of the Bill remains on charitable giving. To be considered a donation, the food must be given without payment to the donor. This includes any nominal sum or logistics fee. If in exchange for the food donation, the donor receives non-monetary benefits, such as publicity, the food given will still be considered a food donation. Miss Rachel Ong asked if the Bill covers donors who receive monetary donations from the public who collect donated food.”
“For this reason, the Bill does not differentiate between an individual, a community food rescue group, a religious organisation, a business or a registered food charity. NTUC FairPrice asked to clarify if a co-operative society is included in the definition of an "entity". Let me assure FairPrice that the definition of an "entity" is broad enough to cover a co-operative society. Members of the public and Members here, including Mr Yip Hon Weng and Miss Rachel Ong, asked about the donation of food past the "expiry", "best before" and "use by" dates. The donation of food past the "expiry", "best before" and "use by" dates will not be covered under this Bill. The Committee debated this issue extensively but ultimately, one is not allowed to sell food past the "expiry", "best before" and "use by" dates. Taking that into account, we should not waive liability when one donates the same food. If it is illegal for sale, the Committee felt it would not be appropriate for donation of the same food to be protected from liability. I should add that Singapore currently takes a relatively simple approach where "expiry", "best before", "use by" and all other dates are treated the same. I do note that there is room to debate this issue further, especially for the "best before" date. I understand MSE is studying this issue further and I eagerly await an update. Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for greater clarity on the Bill's stance on community fridges and food rescue initiatives and whether the Bill extends liability protection to them. This was also raised at the second public consultation by Ms Robin, a zero waste advocate. The Bill does not rule out waiver of liability for community fridges and food rescue initiatives, assuming that the four conditions are met.”
“Members have raised several issues and I have grouped this reply into six areas of concern: one, the unintended and opposite effect of the Bill; two, who is covered under the Bill; three, meeting the four conditions; four, support and help for food donors; five, support and help for recipients; and six, public education and partnerships Let me start by addressing one of the most common feedback we have received. The elephant in the room is whether this Bill might have the unintended and opposite effect of chilling food donation. We have worked hard to avoid this. This is a big elephant and as we learnt from Ms Poh Li San today, an elephant can weigh up to six tonnes. There were concerns about whether this Bill will make some food donation activities illegal or whether existing food donors will be dissuaded because compliance with the four conditions is too difficult. Let me stress again that this is not the intention of the Bill. The Bill should not make it more onerous for donors to donate food. What it does is to strike a balance between encouraging food donation and at the same time, safeguarding food safety and hygiene standards. It is about striking the balance between responsibility and philanthropy that Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim so rightly said. We aim to inspire more food donations and we are confident of achieving this through this Bill without compromising food safety and hygiene standards. As Ms Jean See shared, the well-being of recipients of donated food is priority. Next, who is covered under the Bill? The Committee intended for the definition of a food donor to be as broad as possible to cover as many food donation activities as possible.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their strong support for the Bill as well as their comments and very useful suggestions. This might be the shortest Bill with the most number of speakers – 17 Members spoke on our eight-page Bill. One of our main aims was not just to pass legislation to waive liability for food donations but to shine a spotlight on this very important issue which is seldom debated in this House. I am glad to say we have achieved this through the debate we had over the past two days. Allow me some time to now address key points and questions Members have raised. I will also address some of the key concerns that were raised to the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee through our consultations with stakeholders and members of the public. I will also explain why some suggestions raised to the Committee have not been incorporated into the Bill. Ultimately, the purpose of the Bill is to encourage food donation to address food wastage and food insecurity by waiving liability. As Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng just shared, food waste reduction helps us to realise our vision of a zero-waste nation. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua also shared that this Bill embodies the spirit of a caring society. I should stress that more importantly, the waiver of liability is just one piece of the broader food donation ecosystem. There are many other things we can, should and must do to encourage food donation beyond this Bill. This Bill is just a starting point. With these goals in mind, I will provide some clarification on the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned. [(proc text) Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." − [Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang]. (proc text)]”
“] [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“This means that employers would not receive a waiver for food provided to their domestic helpers. In conclusion, Sir, this Bill will encourage food donation to address the twin problems of food wastage and food insecurity by waiving civil and criminal liability for food donors. To enjoy the waiver of liability, food donors will have to fulfil four conditions which safeguard food safety and hygiene. Sir, in closing, I once again thank the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee, who have worked tirelessly to make this Bill possible and who have helped to draft this Bill from scratch. I am grateful to Ms Elyssa Chua from Breadtalk; Ms Adalia Tan from DBS Bank; Mr Robin Lee from Food from the Heart; Mr Tan Hang Chong from Foodscape Collective; Ms Soh Li Sar from NTUC Fairprice; Mr Dellen Soh from the Restaurant Association of Singapore and Minor Food Group Singapore; Mr Sebastian Chung from the Singapore Hotel Association and Mandarin Oriental Singapore; Ms Noor Hanisah from the Singapore Youth for Climate Action; Mr Nicholas Ng from The Food Bank Singapore; Ms Jeanne Ng from The Fullerton Hotels and Resorts; Mr Jesher Loi from Ya Kun International; grassroots leaders Ms Chua Wei-Shan and Mr Wong Jin Feng; and my fellow Members of Parliament, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia. Finally, I would like to dedicate this Bill to Nizar, the founder of Free Food For All, who passed away last year. He was invited to be a part of the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee but could not make it due to his health. Nizar was an inspiration to many for his work in providing food to the needy. I am sure he would be very proud to see what we have accomplished today. His legacy of giving to others will continue. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.”
“Sir, the Committee intends for these conditions to be reasonable to meet and not any more than what a food donor would already be expected to do before they donate food. To increase safeguards for food safety and hygiene, the Committee considered requiring food donors to be accredited to enjoy waiver from civil and criminal liability. The proposal was surveyed in a public consultation and there was some support for accreditation. However, the Committee also received feedback from smaller food charities and food rescue groups that accreditation will make donation activities more onerous. We did not want the Bill to have the unintended consequence of dissuading food donations by imposing conditions that are too difficult to achieve. For this reason, the Committee decided not to include accreditation as a condition for waiving liability. Even then, the Committee recognises that food donors could use some help to incorporate the proof of meeting these conditions into their operations. I hope that the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE), SFA and the Ministry of Social and Family Development will continue to engage the industry and food charities and provide this support that is very much needed on the ground. Finally, under clause 5(2), the waiver will not apply in two scenarios. The first scenario is where food is exchanged between individuals as part of a personal relationship. For example, the Bill would not apply to giving food to friends or snacks in the office pantry bought for colleagues even though no money is exchanged. The second scenario is where food is provided together with accommodation to an individual in a private residence in exchange for services or labour.”
“Similar to the handling requirements, the food donor can use various means to inform the recipient of any time limit for consuming the food. The key is to ensure that the food donor has proper documentation of the information conveyed to recipients on the time limit for consuming food. The fourth condition is that the donor took all reasonable measures to comply with food safety and hygiene requirements up to the point of donation. One key document here is the SFA Guidelines for Social Service Agencies and Community Groups Involved in Food Preparation and Distribution Activities for Charitable Causes. That was a mouthful and is probably the longest name for any guideline. Food donors must comply with these guidelines. In addition, the donor can have a standard operating procedure (SOP) for its food donation operations and training for its volunteers which complies with food safety and hygiene requirements. As an example, again, Food from the Heart requires its donors to fulfil its SOPs for its Bread Run. Volunteers are also required to comply with the SOPs, including that bread must be collected and redistributed on the same day. If all these four conditions are met, a food donor will enjoy the waiver of civil and criminal liability. All four conditions must be proven before protection can apply. I should stress that the defendant seeking protection has the burden of proof. The defendant continues to enjoy any defence available under any other laws like those in the Sale of Food Act and the Penal Code. I should also stress that clause 5 provides that the protection from liability applies only to liability arising on or after the operative date of the Bill.”
“A food donor can show that the food was not unsafe and unsuitable by showing, for example, that the food donated had a reasonable period before its expiry date or that cooked food was donated within the four-hour timeframe recommended by SFA. A food donor can also show that it has processes to ensure that the donated food was properly packed and that the packaging was not damaged. For example, Food from the Heart has guidelines on packaging of donated bread and the type of bread that it will accept from bakeries. This can be as simple as requiring donated bread to be tied up in plastic bags or not accepting buns with fillings. They also ask that homes and self-collection centres check the bread for mold, pest infestation, bad smells, before distributing to beneficiaries. The second requirement is that the food donor must inform the recipient of any particular requirements to handle the food to ensure it remains safe to consume. These handling requirements may include proper refrigeration, heating, storage temperatures and packaging requirements. The food donor can use various means to inform the recipient of handling requirements. For instance, food donors can ensure that each individual package of donated food has a sticker label informing the recipients of handling requirements. Food donors can also have a sign with handling requirements at the location where donated food is collected or they can verbally brief recipients on the handling requirements. They can either have recipients confirm in writing that they were briefed or can also show that recipients were briefed on handling requirements through messages sent to recipients. The third condition is that the food donor informs the recipient of any time limit within which the food remains safe and suitable.”
“Second, the food donor must inform the recipient of any particular requirements to handle the food to ensure it remains safe to consume. Third, the food donor must inform the recipient of any time limit within which the food remains safe and suitable. Fourth, the donor must take all reasonable measures to comply with food safety and hygiene requirements up to the point of donation. If a donor meets these conditions, even if a beneficiary falls sick after eating donated food, the donor is shielded from civil and criminal liability. Importantly, being shielded from liability does not take away the Singapore Food Agency's (SFA's) powers to investigate any food safety issue. If any food safety issue arises with donated food, SFA can still investigate and take enforcement action. The difference is that food donors only need to show SFA that they have met the four conditions and SFA would not impose any liability on the food donor. Let me now elaborate and give examples on how the four conditions can be met. The Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee Members, The Food Bank Singapore and Food from the Heart helped to come up with these practical steps that donors can take to fulfil these requirements. These are examples of many different ways that a food donor can fulfil the conditions. A food donor does not have to do all the practical steps listed here to enjoy liability protections. Again, these are just suggestions so that everyone can better understand the four conditions. The first requirement is that the food was not unsafe and unsuitable at the time it was donated.”
“Any person can be considered a recipient of food donations. There is no requirement that the recipient must be from a certain income group for the Bill to apply. This Bill will not apply if any money is exchanged for the food. This includes any fee charged by the donor for providing the food, even if the sum is a nominal sum or is lower than market price. Next, clause 3 sets out the purposes of the Bill which are to reduce food waste and to increase availability of food for redistribution to food‑insecure communities. I now move on to the waiver of civil and criminal liability. Clause 4 protects a food donor from civil and criminal liability in respect of any death or personal injury that results from consuming the food donated. The protection applies to all food donors, regardless of whether the food is donated directly to consumers or given to an intermediary, such as a food bank. It also does not matter whether the intermediary is a charity or a profit‑making social enterprise. Food donors must meet four conditions to ensure food safety and hygiene before benefiting from the waiver of liability. This is to balance the interest of donors with that of ultimate recipients. These conditions are not intended to be onerous for food donors. Instead, the Committee believes that these conditions will benefit the food donation ecosystem in Singapore. Beneficiaries would have confidence that the donated food is safe. The safeguards also prevent potential abuse of the waiver. Through our consultations, we arrived at these conditions which are, in fact, best practices that many food donors are already following. First, the food must not be unsafe and unsuitable at the time it was donated.”
“Clause 2 of the Bill defines a "food donor" to mean a person who donates food or an entity which donates food in the course of a business. A food donor can be an entity or an individual. The entity does not need to be a registered charity. The Bill does not differentiate between an individual, a community food rescue group, a religious organisation, a business or a registered food charity. A food donor will cover those who donate food directly to beneficiaries, as well as those who donate food to an intermediary, such as The Food Bank or Food from the Heart, for ultimate distribution to beneficiaries. For example, the Bill will cover soup kitchens and non-profit organisations that donate food to needy communities, food businesses giving away its surplus canned food products to an aged care establishment for consumption by residents at that establishment, and local restaurants and grocery stores that allow individuals to pick up free food from their outlets. Now that we have discussed the definition of a food donor, let us talk about what constitutes a food donation under this Bill. Clause 2 defines "food" to have the same meaning as in the Sale of Food Act 1973. This may include packaged food, like canned food, bottled food or food packed and sealed in a plastic packaging, perishable food, like cakes or bread, cooked food, beverages, fruits and raw vegetables. Clause 2 also defines "donate" to mean a person giving to another anything for a charitable, benevolent, or philanthropic purpose. The definition of "donate" also covers a person giving a thing donated by another for a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purpose. This means that the Bill covers both direct and indirect giving, as long as the purpose of the giving is charitable, benevolent or philanthropic.”
“" Mr Sebastian Chung, who is the Director of Safety, Health, Environment and Food Hygiene at Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group said, "The implementation of the Good Samaritan Food Donation legislation will help to protect hotels against possible liabilities when re-distributing surplus food responsibly. This will encourage hotels to proactively embrace the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) of food waste management and to support Singapore's vision of becoming a Zero Waste Nation." I have shared why we are proposing a waiver of liability but let me stress again and make clear that a waiver of liability cannot be a shield for those who donate unsafe and unhygienic food. In the RAS' survey, all restaurants surveyed indicated that food safety and hygiene was a concern they had with the implementation of the Bill. We agree that food safety and hygiene must remain the top priority. This is why we will introduce four conditions that must be met before a donor can enjoy a waiver of liability. I will explain these four conditions later. These four conditions strike a balance between encouraging food donation through the waiver of liability and safeguarding food hygiene and safety standards. Sir, let me now elaborate on the provisions of the Bill. The Committee took pains to ensure that the Bill takes a balanced approach. The waiver of civil and criminal liability is very carefully scoped and accompanied with the necessary safeguards. First, I will talk about the scope of persons covered by the Bill. Second, I will talk about the definition of food donations. Third, I will talk about the four conditions to be protected from civil and criminal liability. Let me first talk about who is covered under the Bill.”
“In the United States (US), the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act grants protection from civil and criminal liability as long as the food is fit for consumption and donated in good faith and if there is no intentional misconduct or gross negligence. The US introduced this law nearly 30 years ago in 1996. After this law was passed, 7-Eleven announced that the law would allow the company to increase its food donations by as much as 150% over two years. Many other jurisdictions have similar laws, including Italy, Alberta in Canada, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania in Australia. In Italy, no safety issues have arisen in the 10 years since the passage of the law and their food banks have recovered more than three million meals and 23,400 tonnes of food products. I should also add that in Singapore, the public understands and supports waiving civil and criminal liability: 83% of respondents to our public consultation agreed that donations to food charities should be exempt from civil liability; 81% agreed that donations to food charities should be exempt from criminal liability. Businesses agree too. Marina Bay Sands shared, "Donating surplus food is important to Marina Bay Sands, demonstrated by our long-standing partnerships with Food from the Heart and The Food Bank Singapore, which have allowed us to donate over 51,000 kilogrammes of unserved food to communities in need between 2016 and 2023. We support the Bill and hope it will encourage other companies to donate food more regularly and reduce food waste.”
“However, the concern of legal liability is obviously very significant for restaurants with 80% of those surveyed remaining unsure whether the law will adequately protect businesses. This underscores what significant chilling effect the risk of liability has on restaurants. Through this speech and the debate on this Bill, I hope to clarify how this Bill will protect donors who have done all that they can to ensure the safety and hygiene of donated food. I hope to allay the very valid concerns and uncertainties restaurants have. Food charities too have to worry about liability under these laws that I have mentioned. I want to stress that we should never compromise on food safety and hygiene, whether the food is donated or sold. However, food donors and charities who have done all that they can to ensure that donated food is safe for consumption should not be punished for doing good because of things beyond their control. After a food donor or charity has donated the food, a recipient may still fall ill from consuming the food if the food is not properly handled or consumed within a safe period by the recipient. Again, if a food donor or charity has taken all steps to ensure that the donated food is safe, they should be able to donate food with peace of mind from liability. This is what we are proposing to do with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. In fact, this is nothing new. Many other countries have implemented their own food donation laws to address the concerns of liability. These laws have been effective in increasing food donation and still safeguard food hygiene and safety standards.”
“The Government, our NGOs and our youths have all spoken up for a long time for a Good Samaritan Food Donation law. I am glad we are finally taking this step forward. This Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is an important step forward. It is a Bill for the people, by the people and for our planet. Sir, I have shared the problems this Bill aims to tackle. Let me now explain how waiving liability, which is what this Bill is proposing and what many have been calling for, helps with the problem of food waste and food insecurity. Like the buffet restaurant in my story earlier, many businesses are understandably worried about being liable for someone falling ill from eating the food they donate. Businesses have to worry about potential liability under common law negligence and potential penalties under the Sale of Food Act, the Food Regulations, the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations and the Penal Code, just to name a few. Mr Dellen Soh, the Chairman and CEO of Minor Food Singapore and Committee Member of the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS) shared, "Many restaurants want to do good. Restaurants do want to donate excess edible food to reduce food waste and help the community. But the very risk of liability from donated food has a chilling effect for many restaurants. Unfortunately, food waste may be priced into the cost of business. To encourage more food donation, we need laws to tackle the issue of liability." I am very glad that a recent survey conducted by the RAS on the Bill found that 80% of surveyed restaurants strongly support or somewhat support this Bill. Importantly, 60% are very or somewhat likely to participate in food donation if the Bill is passed; and 20% were neutral.”
“Food insecurity has far-reaching impacts. The study found that food insecurity is associated with serious physical and mental health effects. Sir, when we encourage food donation, we tackle so many of our existing problems. We address the issue of food security, we extend the lifespan of the Semakau Landfill, we tackle climate change and we increase the food redistributed to needy families. During our consultations, I heard outrageous stories about the type of perfectly edible food that goes to waste. Chickens that are bruised are rejected because they do not meet beauty standards. Juicy fruits and crunchy vegetables are dumped because of their imperfect shape or colour. The food that we waste while others go hungry is astounding. The Government recognised the need to address liability in food donation as early as 2014, nearly 10 years ago. Ms Tan Poh Hong, CEO of what was at the time the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore, said: "A lot of people do not want to donate […] in case someone gets food poisoning and sues you. [...] I am not saying we are going to have this [Good Samaritan] law, but we are learning from other countries." In August 2019, the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) published a report which found that the lack of liability protection for donors means that traders, distributors and wholesalers prefer throwing instead of donating food. SEC noted that a possible solution is introducing policies to safeguard entities from liability. In 2021, the then-Ministry of Environment and Water Resources partnered with youth from the National Youth Council's Youth Circle to study the effectiveness of a Good Samaritan Food Donation law. The study found that such a law will address the important concern of liability that businesses face.”
“Reducing food waste is an often-overlooked climate solution. Producing food and transporting it takes up valuable resources. When we waste food, we also waste the energy and water it takes to produce the food. Noor Hanisah, a Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee Member and an activist from the Singapore Youth for Climate Action, shared, I quote, “Food waste is one of Singapore’s biggest waste streams. And we often do not realise that each part of the food journey from production, transportation, handling to wastage have huge carbon footprints that worsen climate change. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Law can reduce this through excess food distribution to the ones in need.” This Bill will also help address a fourth problem which Noor Hanisah spoke about. It will help increase availability of food for redistribution to needy families. Sir, I am glad we are recycling the food waste as one of the ways to reduce wastage. We currently recycle less than 20% of our food waste. I am also glad that we have mandated food waste segregation for treatment and reporting this year. But we must remember that much of the food wasted is edible food. In addition to recycling food waste, redistributing excess edible food is another solution we must explore, especially when many people in Singapore still go to bed hungry. A study by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation and supported by the Food Bank Singapore found that in 2019, 10.4% of the 1,200 surveyed households experienced food insecurity at least once in the past 12 months. Food insecurity is when a household does not have access to sufficient, adequate food for a healthy life. While the figures represent a minority of the population, the numbers are still significant and troubling.”
“This Bill is the work of many people who have shared their views, suggestions and feedback, and I am immensely grateful for the important role they played in shaping this important piece of legislation. Let me now outline the problems this Bill aims to tackle. We have a serious food waste problem in Singapore. An average of about 750,000 tonnes of food waste was generated every year for the past five years. We should be concerned about this astounding wastage for four reasons. The first reason is food security. Food does not come naturally to Singapore. More than 90% of our food supply has to be imported. At the mercy of global trade winds, we have to fight harder than most countries to put food on our tables. When we waste food, we undermine this fight. We can do the math – 750,000 tonnes of annual food waste divided by 1.6 million tonnes of commonly consumed food imported annually. The number is 47%. It could be that nearly half of our most commonly consumed food imports go into our trash, not our stomachs. We have to spend so much more and work so much harder because of our food waste habits. The second reason to care about food waste is the strain it puts on our waste disposal system. Food waste makes up 11% of total waste in Singapore. As we incinerate food we do not eat, we will still have to find space to store the ashes left behind. Semakau Landfill is expected to fill up by 2035. There is no second landfill waiting for us. We must reduce the problem of food waste if we are to have a chance of prolonging the lifespan of Semakau Landfill. The third reason to care about food waste is climate change. It is an issue I have spoken up about repeatedly in this House. I am glad that Singapore has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.”
“Even then, the restaurant refused to donate the food. I actually do not blame the restaurant. Not all liability can be waived and the uncertainty of legal proceedings can be a huge business risk. It pains me to say this, but it can be easier to just throw food away. More than four years after this meal, I stand here before this House with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. This Bill is only possible thanks to the amazing and collaborative work done by the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee over the past four years. We consulted extensively, holding public consultations and meeting with restaurants, hotels, social enterprises, primary food producers, food processing companies, distributors, wholesalers, food logistics, transport and delivery provider companies, supermarkets and merchants, bakeries and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Committee took the consultations seriously. The first public consultation was conducted through an online survey from 30 July 2021 to 12 September 2021. We also held several extensive focus group discussions. On 4 April 2024, the Committee conducted the second public consultation, where we presented the draft Bill to members of the public and seek their inputs and feedback. We scrutinised and debated every clause of the Bill. We revised the draft Bill after the second public consultation to address all the feedback we received. Where we were not able to incorporate the feedback, we explained why to the public and the various stakeholders. In this Second Reading, in addition to responding to my fellow Members’ questions, I will also respond to additional feedback we received from members of the public and other stakeholders.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, it has been a month since the First Reading of the Bill and my excitement for this Bill continues to grow exponentially and so, I hope that you will continue to enjoy hearing my excitement in my Bill speeches today. Let me start by sharing my journey in coming up with this Bill. I have to say first, that sometimes people do not like having a meal with me because I constantly nag them about not wasting food. In fact, I will sometimes join a table of people who are already eating and they will say, “Louis is here, cannot waste food already”. I secretly quite like this when they say that because tackling food wastage is something very close to my heart. It is something I teach my daughters. I constantly tell them, “Do not waste food, take what you can eat and finish eating what you have already taken”. Sir, it was a meal with my children that started this four-year journey of drafting and now tabling this Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. More than four years ago, I was at a buffet. Just as we were finishing our meal, my daughter, Ella, and I saw perfectly edible food being thrown away right before our eyes, because the buffet had ended. An entire cake, freshly brought out not long ago and missing just the slice, was dumped into a trash bag. As parents, we always tell our children not to waste food. I could not explain to Ella why we were now seeing good food being thrown away. I spoke to the restaurant and asked if the food could be donated instead of being dumped or being wasted. The reply was that they were worried about liability issues. I offered to sign a waiver of liability and even offered to bring the food to distribute to families in Yishun, families struggling to have three meals a day.”
“This measure would empower our local enforcement agencies to effectively tackle wildlife crime. Further, it would have a strong signalling and deterrence effect against wildlife crime, both in Singapore and globally. Given this, can the Minister look into taking this next step to classify wildlife crimes as serious offences in the Organised Crime Act? Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.”
“What factors or framework will be used by said agencies to determine the expected value of the property? Will there be a specific timeframe set by the agencies to determine the expected valuation of property within that timeframe? Will the agencies seek the assistance or expertise of professionals in determining the valuation of more niche assets? One example of a highly volatile asset in today's landscape is cryptocurrency. How will law enforcement agencies determine the valuation of a defendant's cryptocurrency wallet, which is highly volatile? The Ministry has stated that the powers relating to the sale of properties is to enhance restitution to victims. Can the Minister consider detailing how the proceeds of sales will be used for victim restitution? What factors will determine whether an individual qualifies to receive restitution? Further, what is the process for an individual to receive said restitution? My fourth and final point, is on the designation of foreign environmental crimes as money laundering predicate offences. The Third Schedule to the CDSA recognises environmental offences, such as illegal mining, illegal logging and illegal wildlife trade, as serious offences in Singapore. I welcome the Ministry's designation of illegal wildlife trade as a "foreign serious environmental offence". Defining and addressing wildlife crimes as transnational crimes is a step in the right direction. As a possible next step, I would again propose classifying certain wildlife crimes as serious offences in the Schedule of the Organised Crime Act. I have previously spoken up about this suggestion, as the close links between wildlife crime and other organised crimes, such as drug trafficking and money laundering, constitutes a serious threat to public safety in Singapore.”
“The data that is obtained by STRO may be passed on to the AGC or other prosecuting agencies for use in prosecutions. The information may, then, emerge in open court trials. Can the Minister share what safeguards are in place when data is passed from one agency to another? If a prosecution is brought based on evidence obtained by STRO from other agencies, would the data still be treated as confidential? Would the Prosecution apply to Court to redact or seal the documents? Or would the public interest in an open hearing mean that the information will no longer be treated as confidential? The amended section 45 of the CDSA, allows STRO officers to disclose information disclosed by a regulated person to a regulator. Can the Minister share what factors STRO will consider in deciding what data to share with regulators? What are the purposes and limits on STRO's power to share data with regulators? Can the Minister also share what happens to the data after there is no longer a need for STRO or regulators to possess the data? For instance, if it is determined, after investigations, that no wrongdoing has been committed, will STRO and regulators permanently delete the data obtained? If data is retained, what is the retention period for this data and where will the data be stored? My third point is on the sale of seized or restrained properties. The amended section 35 of the CPC allows the court to order the sale of any property that is seized or restrained. One scenario where the court can do so is if the property is likely to be subject to depreciation. Can the Minister clarify how the law enforcement agencies will determine if the value of the property is likely to depreciate?”
“I previously filed PQs on classifying wildlife crimes as serious offences in the Organised Crime Act 2015. On 5 October 2020, the Ministry said that no links with corruption, money laundering or fraud were established for cases of illegal wildlife trade in Singapore. On 2 November 2021 and 7 November 2022, the Ministry said that, where illegal wildlife trade seizures involve entities outside of Singapore, our enforcement agencies work closely with the source and destination countries and share information with international organisations, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and INTERPOL. In removing the physical element for prosecuting money laundering cases, the Ministry explained that documents from financial institutions of foreign countries to prove the trail of monies are dependent on the cooperation of foreign entities, which is often difficult to secure. Is it the case, then, when no links were found between illegal wildlife trade and money laundering when cooperating with entities outside of Singapore, we were working on the basis of inadequate evidence? Will the amendments, then, allow us to more proactively tackle environmental crimes? Beyond prosecuting money mules, can the Minister confirm that tracing the financial trails to prosecute the masterminds and kingpins behind these operations will remain a priority? If documents from financial institutions are difficult to secure, what other steps are being taken to improve the flow of information between countries? My second point, is on the proposed sharing of data between Government agencies. Under the proposed Bill, STRO has powers to obtain information on personal tax and trade data from a number of Government agencies.”
“Sir, this Bill will enhance the powers of law enforcement agencies to pursue and prosecute money laundering offences, clarify our processes to deal with seized or restrained properties and put into effect certain recommendations of the FATF. This is a positive move that will strengthen both our ability to address the transnational nature of money laundering operations and tighten our internal anti-money laundering processes. I have four points for clarification. My first point, is on the lower threshold for the prosecution of money laundering cases arising from criminal conduct abroad. Under the amended section 56 of the CDSA, the prosecution will no longer need to prove, as a physical element of the offences that property dealt with by the defendant is, in fact, the benefits of drug dealing and criminal conduct. The rationale provided by the Ministry for removing the physical element is to remove the impediment that law enforcement agencies currently face in obtaining evidence from victims, entities and authorities outside jurisdiction. To address evidential difficulties, there are other legal mechanisms, such as rebuttable legal presumptions. Can the Minister share why the Ministry considered legal presumptions to be insufficient for addressing the evidential difficulties, such that it had to resort to removing the physical element altogether? Next, it is a defence if a defendant can raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the money laundered in Singapore were, in fact, benefits from criminal conduct. Given that the defendants in such cases may be money mules, who may have limited resources and access to financial institutions, can the Minister share examples of how practically a defendant might be able to show reasonable doubt?”
“Can the Minister clarify whether the CSP or individual involved will be informed that the Registrar determined that there was a contravention or non-compliance, and decided not to take regulatory action? Can the Minister also clarify whether the Registrar can take into account this earlier determination that there was a contravention or non-compliance as an antecedent if the CSP or individual later commits an offence or regulatory breach? Can the Minister also share what other implications will arise from the Registrar determining that there was a contravention or non-compliance, even if no regulatory action is taken? For instance, will this record be considered in any future application by the CSP or individual? If there are potential future implications from the Registrar's determination that there was a contravention or non-compliance, even if no action is taken, the CSP or individual should be informed of the determination, so that they can decide whether to challenge the determination. Under section 23(1), any regulatory action by the Registrar can be appealed to the Minister. It does not appear that a determination of contravention or non-compliance can be appealed against. If a determination of contravention or non-compliance may have future implications, even when no regulatory action was taken, how can the CSP or individual challenge the Registrar's determination? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.”