HEAD L - MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER RESOURCES

Head L – Ministry of Environment and Water Resources

The Chairman: Head L – Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. Mr Cedric Foo, you may take your two cuts together.

Climate change

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, I will first talk about climate change. I note that Singapore's support of the Copenhagen Accord and our longer term target of meeting the 16% reduction below BAU by 2020. Singapore also has a commitment to improve energy efficiency by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030. However, these are very long-term targets – 2020 is 10 years away and 2030 is 20 years away. I wonder if it would be good for the Ministry to share with the House and to outline more concrete medium-term milestones, say, targets for the next three to five years. It is important to do that as I feel that the climate change regime will come upon us. It is a question of when, and the earlier we can get our industries to adapt, the more we can mitigate the effects of the changes that will be upon us.

5.00 pm

Sir, could the Minister also give details on how Singapore will achieve these mid-term targets? In other words, what needs to be done by our industries, our transport sector and our households, so that we can start the changes now and see how they track with these mid-term targets.

Chairman, my next area is on recycling. The overall recycling rate in Singapore stands at about 57% in 2009. This is encouraging but it also highlights the potential for further improvement. While there are systematic ways of collection at HDB estates, these are manual and cumbersome. Very often, well meaning residents who make efforts to recycle discarded bottles, cans, etc, have to store these items in their homes till the once-a-week collection takes place or they have to bring down to the lift landing and sort them out. This process penalises those who make efforts to recycle. One suggestion would be to re-design the current common rubbish chutes to improve the rate of recycling in a more effective way.

Sir, visitors to Japan are often impressed by the cleanliness of the country – their Shinkansen (trains), streets, estates, their very high social ethics etc. Japanese commuters have developed very strong recycling ethics and practices to discard all their packaging items into recycling bins. Could the Minister comment on whether there are any plans here to equip our hawker centres, food courts and other public places such as MRT stations, parks, places of interest with convenient and effective recycling facilities?

I believe more could be done to increase the coverage and effectiveness of our recycling processes. Also, I believe that many cities – for example, in Japan, Europe and Australia – are ahead of Singapore in terms of recycling. Could the Minister outline what these cities are doing and whether or not we can benefit by studying from them and what are the practices that are in place now in these cities that are also practical for Singapore?

Energy efficiency

Sir, my next area involves energy efficiency. I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on our efforts to increase the usage of energy-saving equipment and appliances, both in households and in industries. Are there plans to replace all incandescent light bulbs, for example, through public awareness programmes or even an outright ban, as in the EU and Australia, for very high energy-consuming appliances?

As early as 2007, the Australian Federal Government announced minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for lighting products to cut down greenhouse gas emissions.

Sir, our approach could begin with concerted efforts and programmes to educate and motivate Singaporean homes and businesses to use energy-saving alternatives such as LED or compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). A systematic approach could be made to encourage the HDB and other developers to use energy efficient light sources and gradually increasing conversion rates within existing homes.

Sir, I note that not much has been done in this area and I am told also that, for example, in Indonesia, the government is considering the issue, in certain cities, energy-efficient light bulbs so, perhaps, we could do something along those lines. Or issue a voucher for them to redeem energy-efficient light bulbs. This could be part of the U-Save Programme.

Sir, my next point is about air-conditioning in public areas. It was rather amusing to read a letter in the Straits Times recently entitled "It's too cold for comfort" written by Loren Howerton. She described her discomfort with the temperature levels in Singapore's cinemas, libraries and offices, despite growing up in Alaska where temperatures there can plunge to minus 40 degree Celsius. Six other similar letters followed regarding the same subject on air-conditioning in Singapore. To quote one of the Forum writers, Lee Hunsen, "What we need here in Singapore is ventilation, not refrigeration." So, could the Minister comment on how we could impose a more sensible approach to recommended temperature settings on our thermostats in public places to ensure both comfort as well as a reduction in our energy consumption and carbon footprint?

The Chairman: Mr Masagos, you may take the two cuts together.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Chairman, Sir, I have been brought up since young to switch off the lights and fans as I go round the house, especially if nobody is using them. I grow up conditioned to sleep without air-conditioners. And even when I need to these days when it is really hot at night, I only turn it on long enough to cool down the room so that later on the fan can just do its work.

I do not sense, however, that this is a habit everyone has taken to and, in fact, I believe many had become used to a life with beautiful but high-energy consuming lights in their houses and cold temperatures in their bedrooms. Often, I meet residents who complain of high electricity bill. I talk to them and ask if they sleep with the air-conditioning turned on, and if they do, I suggest to them to turn it off at one or two o'clock. They tell me they cannot sleep. What can I do?

I understand that on 1st April 2001, the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources formed their National Energy Efficiency Committee (NEEC). With Singapore's plan to accede to the Kyoto Protocol in 2006, the NEEC has been expanded in scope to cover climate change issues and has been renamed the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) to better reflect its expanded function.

At this juncture, I would like to ask whether Singapore has kept up with developed countries in the efficient use of energy. Have we got our citizens to adopt enough of the measures to ensure efficient and economic use of energy even as they rely more on modern appliances to make life comfortable?

Sir, the 2000 World Competitiveness Year Book complied by the World Economic Forum ranked Singapore 25th out of 45 countries behind most developed countries in energy intensity or the amount of commercial energy consumed per dollar of GDP. This could be attributed to the fact that Singapore is a tropical city state where unlike the higher ranked countries which have temperate climate, Singapore depends heavily on air-conditioning to cool its buildings all year round. In temperate countries, heating is usually used only in autumn and winter and air-conditioning in summer, only during very hot weather. Nevertheless, there is much that Singapore can and should do to improve its energy efficiency.

Efficient utilisation of energy will enhance our cost competitiveness bearing in mind that oil and gas prices will rise in the long run. In addition to this, with the growing international concern about carbon dioxide emission, Singapore will need to contain its carbon dioxide emission and comply with international obligations. The challenge will be to ensure economic growth while minimising the growth in energy demand.

Hence, can the Minister share with the House on what more it plans to do to promote energy efficiency in Singapore?

Water resources

Mr Chairman, Sir, without a doubt, the Republic is envied by many developed cities in the world for being able to move from scarcity to sustainability with regards to its water supply. A little red dot that is not blessed with great lakes and limited land size to collect rainwater, it is certainly amazing that Singapore has a robust and diversified water supply from four different sources known as the four national taps – water from local catchment areas, imported water, reclaimed water known as NEWater and desalinated water.

Indeed, if Singapore's breakthroughs in the areas of water technology, continued investment in research and development –

The Chairman: Time to stop. Mr Ang Mong Seng.

Global warming

Mr Ang Mong Seng: ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] We all are feeling very hot and humid these days with the temperature rising up to 35-36 degrees. High temperature has contributed to the increase consumption of water and electricity. I would like to ask the Minister, if this situation continues, do we have enough supply of water and electricity? How should Singaporeans make adjustments in regards to water and electricity consumption?

Climate change has caught the attention of every country. The rising temperature has caused the fast melting of Artic ice, which has subsequently led to the rising of sea levels, threatening the survival of coastal cities. New York, London, Shanghai, Bangkok and Tokyo are among them.

Not long ago, the earthquakes and tsunami in Indonesia caused panic among people. Singapore is an island next the earthquake zone. Many Singaporeans, especially those living near the sea, worry that Singapore will also be threatened by earthquakes, tsunami and the rising sea level. I hope the Minister can share with us how we are going to cope with the situation.

I would also like to know Singapore’s role at international climate change forums. Are funds provided by big countries such as US, China and Japan enough to work out to a solution?

*Cols. 3471-3472.

Green energy

Mr Seng Han Thong (Yio Chu Kang): Chairman, Singapore has set bold targets on green policy and sustainable development which include cutting down on carbon emission. May I ask the Minister whether his Ministry has decided on a green energy policy, especially on the type of vehicular emission technology to adopt in supporting the policy.

Sir, as we understand, some of the public land transport operators have already invested heavily in different technologies supporting the green environment, like Euro V environmentally friendly diesel engine for public buses and CNG for some taxis. My concern is that if Government decides later to impose on these public transport operators a certain type of technology which is different from what is being invested now, it may have impact on the job and income of the workers.

For taxis, green vehicles like hybrid-based technology are more expensive to own and maintain. As a result, rental costs of such vehicles may go up and earnings of taxi drivers will be affected.

So, in the case of buses, operators have already invested a large sum to purchase the new Euro V buses. So any change in policy on green vehicles would severely impact the bottom line of these operators and, ultimately, affect our workers' earnings.

The Chairman: Mr Seah Kian Peng, you may take your two cuts together.

Utility bills

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Sir, I would like to ask if we can give a special price for Singaporeans who manage to work with less than the international benchmarks for conservation of water and electricity. I suggest that this be priced no more than $50 for a household of four, or some pro-rated amount for larger households. Let me explain.

Currently, Singaporeans use about 158 litres of water per person per day. Although we are on schedule to meet the target of per capita domestic consumption of 155 litres by 2012, why not set a challenge for Singaporeans to see if they can do with much less? Our domestic electricity consumption per person has declined in four consecutive years from 2005. Yet in countries like Hong Kong electricity consumption is much less – in 2006 this was some 30% less than Singapore’s per capita consumption. Is there a possibility that Singaporeans can be encouraged to do with much less?

Sir, the climate talks around the world will continue but progress has been slow. On the ground, in our homes, I am sure that every one of us would like to make a difference. This is a practical and important way to educate Singaporeans about the possibilities of doing with less.

The PUB and Singapore Power have had education campaigns for years. Having a low rate special will give Singaporeans fresh impetus and a new sense of fun when saving water and electricity. These benchmarks are per capita based so even large households will benefit.

Now, how do we price them? I suggest the Ministry follow a social pricing model – that is to say, for households who are needy and who would like very much to save on their utility bills, have a very low price for those who manage to stay significantly below national averages.

For a 4-room flat, the average electricity bill is $92 a month and for water, about $32. Therefore, their average utility bill without gas is $134. For those who are savvy consumers, their water and electricity bill can be under $100. And if we are very frugal and careful, if we consume less than 50% of what the national per capita consumption is, then I think the Public Utilities Board should reward us with a very low flat fee of about $50 for both electricity and water.

5.15 pm

I call this social pricing but, of course, I do not think that this should be means tested. With this price, and assuming my rough calculations are right,

we should offer this deal to everyone. It is both a socially responsible and financially prudent thing to do.

Carbon footprint and targets

There is a heatwave in Singapore at the moment, but pop into any office along Raffles Place and it is winter time.

What is the matter with us? We can build two resorts in a few years but we cannot turn the air-conditioning down.

I would like to ask for us to legislate the setting of air-conditioning in all public buildings at 24 degree Celsius. This is the same call that I made last two years, in the face of our continued callousness in the use of electricity – I think it must be mandated. This is not just to save money, it is a general principle of frugality, not to use more than you need, and to tread as lightly as we can upon the earth’s surface.

I have two other proposals regarding national events. First, we ought to ensure that they are as green as possible. NEA has been able to conduct some carbon offsets for its events such as youth concerts. Can the NEA teach the rest of our Government agencies how such offsets work, and see if they can adopt it too? Second, can the NEA also come up with a list of guidelines towards organising "green" events, for example the amount of recyclables that must be used and the maximum amount of water that is generated?

Finally, Sir, I would also like to ask all Government bodies, including Parliament, to make public their current carbon footprints and to declare their targets as well as the timelines to meet these objectives.

UN climate change conference in 2009

Dr Fatimah Lateef: Sir, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in December 2009 was one with some controversies. The Copenhagen Accord, which was drafted by countries such as China, the United States, India, South Africa and Brazil, and deemed to be a meaningful agreement by the US government, was noted but not adopted or passed unanimously. While countries at different levels of development may have personal agendas pertaining to the issue of climate change, Singapore, as a responsible nation in a global world, has pledged our effort to lower carbon emissions by 16% before business as usual level by 2020. Will this stretch us to the limits in terms of our mitigation measures, as 2020 is only 10 years away?

The Copenhagen Accord does not meet all the elements we would have liked to, have been added. What exactly is Singapore's position on this matter? Should we have negotiated for a more generalised global treaty instead?

International recognition of Singapore

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Before the start of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference late last year, a vision was set which many countries saw as a positive step towards doing our bit for the environment. However, as we saw the Conference progressed and how it ended off, it left many important decisions and issues undecided and unanswered.

The meeting was supposed to adopt emission reduction targets for industrialised countries for a second commitment period after 2012. It was also supposed to agree on longer-term cooperative action on a range of issues including mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer and financial resources to support developing countries’ efforts. The end product of the high-powered and internationally charged event ended with a mere Accord which was promulgated as a compromise by a small number of countries behind closed doors. There was no unanimous consensus to that Accord internationally. Notwithstanding the disappointment, many concerned Singaporeans and I are proud of Singapore Government’s commitment to do our part to save the Earth, even though we are only a small red dot.

The next COP-16 meeting in Mexico will be at the end of this year. The possible outcome remains unclear and the chance of an international agreement is shrouded in greater uncertainty.

It appears that ASEAN governments wanted to support and drive an agreement including managing other issues regarding coastal and ocean management but it did not materialise. What will Singapore and its ASEAN partners do in the meantime to collaborate towards COP-16 in Mexico? On funding, ASEAN called for financial contributions for mitigation and adaptation to be set at 0.5% to 1% of developed countries’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with a considerable proportion of that coming from governments themselves. How will this impact Singapore from an economic angle?

In light of the COP-15 and its inertia, I feel that Singapore, despite its pursuit in the next decade for productivity and focusing on driving economic growth, will still need to draw a balance with sustainable development and continue making Singapore a sustainable city-state. Barring the disagreement between US and China and its ramifications downstream, how are we contributing and preparing towards the eventual adoption of an international agreement to move ahead with the various points for agreement?

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Chairman, I wish to thank Mr Cedric Foo, our GPC chairman and Members for their questions and helpful suggestions.

Mr Cedric Foo asked about Singapore's plans for sustainable development. Dr Fatimah and Ms Ellen Lee also asked about Singapore's position with regard to the Copenhagen Accord, arising from the recent Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

The Copenhagen Conference did not produce a legally binding agreement. However, countries agreed to continue the work through this year to the next Climate Change Conference in Mexico in December 2010. Countries also took note of the Copenhagen Accord, which outlines elements of a global framework on climate change, including long-term goals, mitigation of greenhouse gases by both developed and developing countries, financing, adaptation and technology transfer.

At Copenhagen, Singapore supported the Copenhagen Accord and has since written to the UNFCCC Secretariat to associate ourselves formally with the Accord as a good basis for advancing negotiations towards reaching a legally binding global agreement on climate change. Though the Accord, as it stands, does not create legal obligations, it contains important elements that can facilitate the ongoing negotiations. To date, about 100 out of the 194 Parties to the UNFCCC have associated themselves with the Accord. About 30 non-Annex I countries, including Singapore, have also tabled their emission reduction targets.

Countries will now need to work hard to reach a global agreement. Developed countries should take the lead by continuing to fulfil their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to substantially reduce their emissions. Developing countries too have a responsibility to play their part by taking actions to reduce their carbon emissions. Sir, I met the Mexican Environment Minister at the informal high-level Ministerial meeting on climate change in Bali recently and we had a good exchange on the way forward. I told him that Singapore stands ready to be a constructive player to help move the process towards a successful outcome in Mexico. The Mexican Minister shared his view that Singapore plays an important role in the negotiations and commended our domestic actions in the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint and our offer of 16%.

Ms Ellen Lee asked about ASEAN's effort on climate change. Climate change is a key issue for many ASEAN countries as we are vulnerable to the adverse impacts of global warming. In November 2007, ASEAN leaders endorsed the ASEAN Declaration on Environmental Sustainability, and committed to the goal of addressing climate change and preventing dangerous changes to the world’s climate system. ASEAN Environment Ministers also established an ASEAN Working Group on Climate Change to enhance cooperation and collaboration.

Sir, ASEAN members are part of the larger G77/China developing country group which has called for developed countries to contribute 0.5% to 1% of GDP to fund mitigation and adaptation. Developing countries, like Singapore, are not obliged to contribute but can help on a voluntary basis, for instance, through technical cooperation programmes. For example, through NEA’s Singapore Environment Institute, we have conducted programmes for participants from developing countries on green energy and climate change.

Singapore has also contributed towards reducing carbon emissions arising from forest fires in the ASEAN region. We have collaborated closely with Indonesia, in particular Jambi Province, on fire prevention and suppression. These efforts are also important to our air quality. Singapore's air quality has been in the "good" range since the start of this year. Nonetheless, due to dry weather conditions, our air quality was recently slightly affected by bush fires in the northern and eastern parts of Singapore. I understand there were also bush fires in Johor. Our neighbours are doing their best to battle forest fires in their areas and we will continue to engage them through the Sub-regional Ministerial Steering Committee on Transboundary Haze Pollution. I also urge Singaporeans to dispose of their litter responsibly as carelessly discarded items like lit cigarette butts or matches could lead to bush fires.

Sir, to play our part in international efforts to mitigate climate change, Singapore has pledged to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 16% from the 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. This target is contingent on a legally binding global agreement in which all countries implement their commitments in good faith. Our target is credible and rigorous given our past efforts to reduce emissions and the constraints we face as a city-state, including our limited potential to adopt renewable energy. It is a substantial commitment by Singapore. Achieving it will involve considerable costs, and changes in lifestyle and business practices.

In her speech at the opening session of the Copenhagen Conference, the COP-15 President, Danish Minister Connie Hedergaard, cited Singapore as one of the developing countries that announced national targets and commented that these were examples of "ambitious national actions" that developing countries could take in order to contribute towards the global mitigation effort. Singapore was commended in the EU statement at Copenhagen. Aside from the EU and the Mexicans, the Swiss, US and some of our ASEAN counterparts also told our delegation that Singapore's offer was appreciated.

While the detailed emissions reduction measures for each sector are still being firmed up, I wish to assure Mr Seng Han Thong that our approach will be to phase in the measures gradually. The Government will also help cushion the impact and lighten the burden on households and businesses.

A key part of our strategy to achieve the 16% target is energy efficiency, and Singapore is implementing plans to improve energy efficiency, even while the international negotiations are ongoing. Members spoke about the importance of energy efficiency. This was also underscored by the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) in its recommendations last month. Energy efficiency reduces costs, enhances energy security, and makes our economy more competitive. The ESC proposed that Singapore should be a Smart Energy Economy. This includes stepping up measures to promote energy efficiency across the key sectors.

In April last year, we launched the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint which sets out Singapore’s strategies to achieve a more vibrant economy and a more liveable environment for future decades. The blueprint is a comprehensive plan to improve resource efficiency, enhance our environment, grow capabilities and build a culture of environmental responsibility in Singapore. One of the targets under the blueprint is to reduce energy intensity by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. Mr Foo mentioned that this is a long time span, and whether we have interim targets. The short answer is yes but these targets are being developed. To achieve this, the Government will play a key part and I will outline the measures being implemented in each sector.

The Ministry of National Development shared during its COS debate that efforts are underway to improve the energy efficiency of our buildings, which account for more than one-third of national electricity consumption. Last year, BCA launched its second Green Building Masterplan which aims for 80% of our buildings to be green by 2030, and introduced a $100 million incentive scheme to encourage the retrofitting of existing buildings. BCA will increase the mandatory minimum energy efficiency standards for Green Mark certified new buildings by 10% from today’s standards by the end of this year, and will also mandate the submission of building energy usage data from 2011.

Transport is another sector which utilises a fair amount of energy. As public transport is the most efficient mode of transport, the Government set aside more than $40 billion to improve the public transport system to encourage more people to switch to public transport. To manage the use of private transport, the vehicle population growth rate was lowered to 1.5% last year and improvements to the off-peak car scheme were recently implemented. MOT and LTA will continue to assess other measures and implement them at an appropriate time.

There is significant potential for industry, the largest energy consuming sector, to save energy and reduce costs by investing in energy efficiency. We have various incentives to encourage the adoption of energy efficient technologies and practices. For instance, the Grant for Energy Efficient Technologies (GREET) co-funds up to 50% of the cost of energy-efficient equipment. Funding of about $2.5 million has been approved for five projects which are estimated to result in annual energy savings of over $700,000. NEA also introduced the Singapore Certified Energy Manager Training Grant to co-fund the cost of energy management training.

5.30 pm

Building on these efforts, we will take more robust measures to spur industries in Singapore to be leaders in energy efficiency. From experiences in other countries, the implementation of energy management programmes is one of the most cost-effective ways to improve energy efficiency. Studies indicate that a company can expect to reduce energy consumption by at least 10% to 15%, with many companies able to achieve even larger reductions. This is why some countries mandate energy management practices.

In Denmark, energy-intensive companies have to pay higher energy taxes unless they put in place energy management systems, identify and implement energy efficiency improvement measures and submit annual reports on their progress. In Japan, Sir, industrial facilities are required to adopt energy management practices and have in place training for workers and processes to be more energy efficient. Similarly, Sir, we want our companies to have the right processes and people to ensure prudent use of energy. Some companies in Singapore already adopt a robust approach to managing their energy use. For instance, Merck Sharp & Dohme set the target of reducing energy use by 7% this year as part of its energy efficiency plan. Such practices ought to be the norm in Singapore.

Our consultations with large energy users indicate that a range of energy management practices exists today. We therefore see the need for minimum standards to ensure greater management attention is paid to energy. While this will ultimately benefit companies in terms of cost-savings, we also recognise the need to give companies sufficient lead-time to prepare.

By 2013, we will require companies in the industry sector consuming more than the equivalent of 15 GWh of energy each year to appoint an energy manager, monitor and report energy use to NEA, and develop and submit energy efficiency improvement plans. NEA will be consulting the companies involved on the detailed requirements.

To ensure a smooth transition, NEA will introduce the Energy Efficiency National Partnership (EENP) in April to help our companies build up the necessary capabilities before the mandatory energy management practices come into effect. We will also be reviewing our incentive schemes and exploring long-term energy efficiency financing options to cater to the needs of companies.

These energy management requirements for industry and energy efficiency-related legislation in other sectors will be consolidated in an Energy Conservation Act that will come into force in 2013. The Act allows for a co-ordinated approach to standards-setting for energy efficiency across all sectors, and will represent a major milestone in the Government's efforts to develop energy efficiency as a competitive advantage for Singapore.

Sir, Mr Seah Kian Peng suggested lower electricity and water charges for households that consume less than the norm. In Singapore, electricity and water are priced to reflect their full cost to send the right pricing signals to consumers and minimise wasteful consumption. Households that use these resources efficiently enjoy direct benefits by having smaller utility bills.

We will continue to raise the awareness of energy efficiency in our households. In April 2008, we introduced the 10% Energy Challenge to encourage households to adopt energy-saving habits. Household appliances such as refrigerators, air-conditioners and clothes dryers in stores now carry the mandatory energy label so that consumers have sufficient information to make energy efficient purchases.

NEA also entered into a voluntary agreement with retailers and suppliers to promote energy efficient appliances. Signatories such as Best Denki and Harvey Norman are retiring their stock of energy inefficient models and introducing more three- and four-tick ones so that energy efficient models form a larger percentage of models on sale.

As I announced last year, minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) will be implemented for household air-conditioners and refrigerators in 2011. MEPS will remove the most energy inefficient air-conditioners and refrigerators from the market. Depending on the appliance category, all zero-tick models and some one- and two-tick models will be removed, representing about 20% of our current sales volumes. A sufficient range of brands and models will remain available for consumer choice.

MEPS will help consumers to save on electricity bills and is not expected to significantly increase the upfront cost of air-conditioners and refrigerators. A more efficient refrigerator that costs the same as one phased out by MEPS can save a household about $130 a year. When all the existing air-conditioners and refrigerators in Singapore comply with the MEPS standards, consumers will enjoy a total energy savings of about $20 million annually.

Sir, we will tighten the MEPS standards over time. We will also consider Mr Foo's suggestion of extending MEPS to more appliances, such as lighting and televisions.

Sir, Mr Seah asked about public sector's efforts to reduce carbon footprint. Improving energy efficiency is Singapore's strategy to mitigate climate change. Since 2007, all large public sector buildings have been required to conduct energy audits to identify areas where energy savings can be reaped. All public agencies are also to ensure that the ambient indoor air temperature of their premises is in the range of 22.5 to 25.5 degree Celsius, to maintain comfort without overcooling the premises.

Sir, as at end 2009, 12 out of 56 public sector buildings have completed their audits and implemented the recommendations, achieving about $3 million in total annual savings. A further $1.5 million in total annual savings could be realised when improvement works in the pipeline are completed. There will be more savings when the remaining buildings complete their audits by end FY2011.

Major infrastructure facilities have also improved their energy efficiency. PUB is carrying out measures to reduce energy consumption at its installations by 10% in FY2010 compared to BAU projections. NEA's waste disposal facilities also implemented measures which reduced electricity consumption by about 9% and achieved an average savings of over $3 million annually over the last 10 years.

Sir, I am also pleased to inform Mr Seah that NEA has been working with organising committees of national events such as the National Day Parade to help reduce the environmental impact of these events. NEA also developed a set of green event guidelines which are available on its website.

Sir, the public sector will continue to take the lead on environmental sustainability measures. From FY2011, all Ministries will set energy-savings targets. We will continue to study new measures that can be implemented.

Sir, Mr Ang Mong Seng asked if Singapore was prepared for climate change. In 2007, the NEA commissioned a study involving local and foreign experts to understand our vulnerabilities to climate change.

The first phase of the study covering the physical impacts of climate change has concluded. The results have been peer-reviewed by international experts who noted that the study adopted well-established methodologies and that the findings are plausible.

The study projects that the average daily temperature in Singapore could increase by between 2.7 and 4.2 degree Celsius from the current average of 26.8 degree Celsius by 2100 and the mean sea level around Singapore could rise by 24 to 65 centimetres by 2100. These findings are within the range of our expectations and consistent with global projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But, Sir, these findings are not the last word on this subject as climate science is a complex and evolving subject. We are not certain, for instance, about the impact of ice sheet melting. NEA will continue to keep abreast of developments in this area. We will improve our understanding as more information and data become available and climate change models become more robust.

As a result of our long-term approach to infrastructure planning, we already have some measures in place which will help address the potential impacts of climate change. For example, PUB's current requirements for reclaimed land to be constructed to a platform level of 125 centimetres above the highest tide level should give us an adequate buffer against the projected sea level rise in the short to medium term. In addition, we are enhancing our response to the impact of floods by expanding our network of water level sensors, and we will be studying if our drainage design standards need to be revised to cater for heavier storms.

Sir, NEA has embarked on a second phase of the Vulnerability Study to investigate in detail the impacts of climate change on public health, urban temperature and urban biodiversity. This will inform future adaptation measures that the Government will put in place to address the longer term impacts of climate change. MND leads an inter-agency Adaptation Taskforce to review the sufficiency of Singapore's existing adaptation measures and identify new measures as required.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli asked about our water supply and water demand. Like energy, water is a key resource and we will ensure that a sustainable supply continues to be in place to support our economic growth and population needs.

By 2011, Singapore's water catchment area will increase to two-thirds of our land area with the completion of the Punggol and Serangoon reservoirs.

In addition, Sir, when Changi NEWater factory is fully completed in 2010, NEWater will be able to meet 30% of our current water needs. As a source which is independent of rainfall, NEWater enhances the resilience of our water supply by supplementing local water stocks in the event of extended dry spells, like what we are experiencing today.

So far during this current dry spell, we have managed to keep our reservoir levels high by tapping our NEWater and desalination capacity. However, increasing our water supply is only half the picture. The current dry and hot weather has seen Singaporeans using more water. To ensure a sustainable water supply for all, I urge everyone here to do our part and use water wisely. I have been told that it is raining in Woodlands. So the heavens have opened up but we must still continue to be frugal. It is also raining here outside Parliament.

Sir, water pricing is an important element of our water conservation efforts. The price of water recovers the full costs of producing and supplying it, and also factors in the higher cost of additional water supplies. Thus, on top of the tariff for potable water, the Government levies a water conservation tax from the first drop. The volumetric structure of the water tariff and water conservation tax ensure that the less water you consume, the lower your water bills. Singaporeans therefore benefit directly in cost savings through the prudent use of our water resources.

Sir, Singaporeans have been supportive of water conservation, enabling us to reduce per capita domestic water consumption from 165 litres per day in 2003 to 155 litres per day in 2009. We should not let up on our water conservation efforts as we work towards the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint target of 140 litres in 2030.

But, Sir, to better understand the drivers behind water use, the PUB is conducting a water consumption lifestyle study, which is expected to be completed by end 2011. As part of the study, a survey was conducted to understand the public's attitude towards water conservation. It is encouraging that most respondents perceive water conservation to be important. Moving forward, the study will focus on finding ways to further promote water conservation.

To help the non-domestic customers such as industries, hotels and schools to better manage their water use, PUB will work with them to prepare Water Efficiency Management Plans. These plans will include an analysis of their current water use, identify potential water saving measures and an implementation timeline. Sir, customers will be able to tap our existing Water Efficiency Fund to implement these measures if they meet the funding criteria. To-date, about 20 companies have submitted their plans, with water saving targets of up to 10%.

Sir, with your indulgence, I will respond to Mr Zulkifli's query on ABC Waters and Mr Cedric Foo's query on Recycling later when I take Dr Lim Wee Kiak's cut.

Recycling and waste minimisation

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Sir, being a small and compact urban city state, Singapore can be a model city nation to the world in the best practices in recycling and waste minimisation. We generate more than 5.6 tonnes of rubbish per day and that is 2,044 tonnes per year. With the opening of our integrated resorts and an expected huge influx of tourists, we can only expect our rubbish load to increase. With limited land for incineration and landfill, we have no choice but to recycle more and reduce waste. In 2008, we achieved a recycling rate of 56%. I understand that this rate has been going up. I would like to ask the Minister whether we are on target of achieving 60% recycling rate by 2012. What is the Ministry doing now to encourage higher recycling rate by households?

5.45 pm

The "Bring Your Own Bag" (BYOB) campaign started off with a very good response two years ago. It started only with one Wednesday a month and it quickly caught on and soon we started on every Wednesday. However, the movement seems to have lost steam along the way and now we are hardly reminded at all about this campaign. I asked my daughter this morning when I was driving her to school about "Bring Your Own Bag". She asked me, "What is that?" What is the Ministry doing now to encourage Singaporeans to reduce the use of plastic bags? Will the BYOB movement be extended to more days of the week especially the weekends where crowds are at their greatest in their numbers?

I would also like to thank the Ministry on the pilot project to provide every block with a recycling bin at one of my precincts in Sembawang GRC. The preliminary results of the last two months have been very promising. I am pleased to say that out of the 14 blocks, the 14 bins have been full almost every week. And I hope that one day, every block of HDB flats will have a recycling facility. I know there are challenges.

The residents have complained about the overflowing problem at the recycling bin, and that is a good problem to have. It means that the residents are recycling. Some of the bins had non-recyclable rubbish thrown in, and that has to be rectified by public education. I hope the Ministry can monitor and solve some of these ground issues more efficiently. Ideally, I hope that recycling bins will be an essential item in all buildings, including HDB flats, in the building code and make recycling a way of the Singaporean lifestyle.

Research and development and manpower capabilities

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: How far have we progressed towards our goal of building Singapore into an international knowledge hub in sustainable development solutions? What is the progress report on the Jalan Bahar Cleantech Park which is due to open this year? Could the Minister also update us on our landfill at Pulau Semakau? Where are our alternative landfills? Are there any plans to introduce new technology and efficiency methods into our landfill programme?

Sir, how does MEWR forecast for the kind of manpower capabilities that it requires for its current and future projects? The Changi NEWater plant is expected to meet 30% of our water needs. With the technological advances made over the years, what are our plans to make Singapore self-sufficient in our water needs? On the domestic front, how can we also find innovative ways to consume less water? We see maids spray-hosing our cars and gardens. We should also find other alternative ways to encourage the re-use of water used to clean rice and fish for the plants at home.

Sir, on a personal note, I have gone waterless when cleaning the floor in the house. I have been using Magiclean moist paper wipes to mop my floor. It costs about 0.6 cents per sheet and one sheet can do a whole floor of about 500 square feet. It is anti-bacteria and its electro-magnetic properties pick up particles and dust. It certainly cleans up the floor better than water. Most importantly, this alternative cleaning has been lighter on my water bill. We should encourage Singaporeans to go waterless and try new ways of minimising our water consumption.

Recycling industry

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Singapore Sustainable Development Blueprint sets an overall recycling target of 70% by 2030, the overall recycling rate in 2008 is at 53%.

NEA's major initiatives like National Recycling Programme is to have the recycled material collected by the four licensed Public Waste Collectors. However, the " Karung Guni " trade, which also collects the bulk of recycled material from households, seems to be forgotten in such initiatives.

Small " Karung Guni " are usually OMO and send their collections to SME waste collection companies, known as the bigger " Karung Guni ". If the collection company is too far away, it will not be cost effective for the small players.

These recycled material collection companies need a more centralised location to perform collection and sorting. I understand that approved land and industrial property for such trades are in short supply. I know some companies currently at Defu Lane in Hougang are asked to vacate the premises. To move out of convenient locations like this means almost certain death for the trade and many will become unemployed.

The current land approved for the recycling industry are at remote areas like Tuas and Sarimbun Recycling Park. These areas are too far and more meant for factories processing the recycled material into useable form.

Next, it seems that there is no holistic approach from various Government agencies such as NEA, PUB, HDB, etc, on the guideline to regulate the recycle collection industry. While NEA issues licence to the company, PUB will have another set of requirement due to concern of water pollution. Although these companies are prepared to invest to meet the required environmental standard, the uncertainty of land use makes it difficult for them to commit such an investment. I suggest the Government consider setting up a recycle "Collection Hub" perhaps at Lorong Halus.

By better tapping on the SMEs other than just the Public Waste Collectors, the many hands approach can improve recycling outreach to help improve the overall recycling rate.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Mr Chairman, I thank the three speakers. Let me start with recycling and waste minimisation.

Our overall recycling rate has increased from 40% in 2000 to 57% in 2009 and we are on track to meet the target of 60% by 2012. We are studying how we can enhance the effectiveness of our existing recycling efforts. For instance, there is scope to reduce the amount of domestic waste disposed and we are working with the public waste collectors to review the National Recycling Programme. This includes studying the provision of more recycling bins in HDB estates and the collection and recycling of other waste streams such as garden waste from landed homes and food waste from markets.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked about reducing plastic bag usage. Sir, we limit the environmental impact of disused plastic bags by incinerating them in our waste-to-energy incineration plants, rather than landfilling them. Many households also re-use plastic bags to bag their refuse. The focus of efforts like the "Bring Your Own Bag Day" was launched by the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) in April 2007 is therefore to discourage the excessive use of plastic bags via public education, and to foster a more conservation-oriented mindset. I understand that close to 300 retail outlets now participate in this effort. And I think this is encouraging. I assure Dr Lim that NEA will continue with efforts to educate the public on the importance of recycling and waste minimisation as well as the proper use of recycling facilities.

To support new waste minimisation and recycling projects, NEA launched an $8 million 3R Fund last year. To date, we have received 43 applications, of which nine were approved with grants amounting to $137,000, and 18 are still being evaluated. One of the applications approved is the National University of Singapore's Recycling Master Plan to improve the recycling infrastructure and enhance the 3R culture in the University. The project is expected to reduce or recycle 540 tons of waste over three years.

Sir, to reduce waste at source, NEA has collaborated with the food and beverage industry on the voluntary Singapore Packaging Agreement since July 2007. This Agreement demonstrates that environmentally friendly practices make sound business sense – the participating companies saved $4.4 million from a reduction of 2,500 tons of packaging waste over the last two years.

For example, F&N Coca-Cola you see on the screen shortened the neck closure and reduced the weight of their plastic bottles, saving about 200 tonnes of materials a year. Tetra Pak Jurong introduced a process to recover and reuse waste plastic packaging materials, saving about 380 tonnes of packaging a year. Following the extension of the Agreement to cover all types of product packaging since October 2009, we can expect to see avoided waste and reduced packaging in other sectors as well.

Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang asked how we are developing the recycling industry. Since 1995, land has been set aside for the recycling industry at the Sarimbun Recycling Park (SRP). The SRP is now fully leased out to 13 companies recycling waste items such as wood, horticultural waste, and construction and demolition waste. NEA is exploring other areas where recycling industries can be sited. Companies, in fact, can also apply to JTC for industrial land to set up recycling facilities.

Mr Low raised the question about some companies having to move out of Defu Lane. To the best of our knowledge, that has not happened. But housekeeping is now being enforced in the Defu industrial estate because now it is part of the Marina-Punggol Reservoir Water Catchment and therefore we have to ensure that the companies there meet environmental pollution standards.

Sir, NEA also has various funding schemes to incentivise and develop the waste management and recycling industry. These schemes include the 3R Fund, which I touched on earlier, the Innovation for Environmental Sustainability Fund as well as the Environment Technology Research Programme. SPRING Singapore also has assistance schemes targeted at SMEs, including loan schemes and capability upgrading programmes.

Mr Cedric Foo raised the possibility of introducing recycling chutes in HDB estates. Let me just give him an example. A trial was undertaken at Chua Chu Kang to retrofit and convert unused refuse chute into chute for recycles. And it shows that recycling participation rate of the households in the block increased from 67% in December 2006 to 93% in July 2007. Currently, several chutes for recyclables will also be provided at four new HDB blocks at Fernvale at Sengkang and at the new eco-precincts at Punggol and at the regenerated Dawson estate. We have looked at the first experience and we will implement this progressively to see whether it will help in terms of our recycling rate. The demonstration project at Chua Chu Kang proves it and that is why HDB is now considering it for some of the new estates.

Sir, let me now move on to the question of our R&D and manpower capabilities. Singapore's good track record in environment and water management puts us in a strong footing to develop new solutions that are exportable to the world. I am pleased to inform Mdm Ho Geok Choo that we have been making good progress on this front.

We have been building new capabilities in sustainable water solutions for several years, supported by the Clean Water Programme launched in 2006 with $330 million in funding from the National Research Foundation (NRF). The Clean Water sector now contributes over $800 million in value add (VA) and supports about 9,000 jobs, and we are on track to meet our target of $1.7 billion in VA and 11,000 jobs in 2015.

In 2009, six research projects amounting to $13 million received funding from the Clean Water programme. Two of these projects focus on developing the next generation of water membranes by mimicking nature, for example, the mechanism utilised by mangroves to purify brackish water. These bio-mimetic membranes have the potential to significantly lower the energy used in water purification.

We have a vibrant community of R&D centres in Singapore which also serve as manpower receptacles to train specialised R&D manpower for the industry, a point raised by Mdm Ho. For example, the Singapore-Delft Water Alliance launched its Double M.Sc. Degree in Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources Engineering in 2009. This is a joint programme between NUS and the Delft University of Technology, and provides an ideal platform for the students to draw from the expertise of both universities. Such programmes complement the existing courses offered by our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), and together with our scholarships, ensure a pipeline of qualified manpower to support Singapore's water industry.

Singapore is providing platforms for the international sharing of ideas and best practices. Our second annual Singapore International Water Week (SIWW) was held in June 2009 and brought together more than 10,000 participants from over 80 countries. Looking ahead, SIWW 2010 is set to be another milestone as Singapore will also be concurrently hosting the inaugural "Asia Pacific Water Ministers Forum", which will highlight the importance of good governance and solutions to water sustainability.

As for other efforts to grow the Clean Environment sector, the Jalan Bahar CleanTech Park is being jointly developed by JTC and EDB. The development of the Park will be carried out in three phases over 20 years with Phase 1 commencing in July 2010. NTU will be the first anchor tenant and will help to seed R&D activities.

NEA also launched the $15 million Environment Technology Research Programme (ETRP) last year to focus on developing waste management solutions for Singapore which also have export potential. The first request-for-proposal (RFP) saw good response with 67 proposals received. Many interesting ideas were raised.

For instance, one proposal aims to reduce the time needed for landfill stabilisation from the existing norm of around 30 to 40 years, to between 10 and 15 years. This proposal and four others received a total ETRP funding of about $4.8 million. The second RFP was launched in January to fund research in improving the efficiency of incineration plants and extending the lifespan of the one and only landfill that we have in Singapore which is the Semakau Landfill. This attracted 27 proposals and the results will be announced in June. And Mdm Ho has asked about Semakau landfill. At the current rate of use, Semakau landfill is expected to last another 25 to 30 years. NEA is proceeding with plans to turn Semakau landfill into an eco-park to allow companies to conduct field testing of renewable and clean technologies, and is currently exploring possible pilot projects for implementation.

6.00 pm

Sir, we are also working closely with the IHLs and other agencies to build up Singapore's environment capabilities through research. As a start, NEA collaborated with NTU to secure $7 million from the NRF to develop sustainable urban waste management solutions.

The research aims to harness waste streams for energy production.

We have made a good start in waste management research. Looking ahead, Sir, we will continue to identify new areas where investments in research and technology can develop fresh solutions to overcome Singapore's constraints, and help our companies tap the growing global demand for sustainable development solutions.

Sir, Mdm Ho had made a remark on how we can encourage home owners to use less water especially in the way we wash our cars and water our gardens. Sir, we recognise that engaging different groups within the community is important to raise and sustain awareness on the need to conserve water. Towards this end, the PUB will continue to work with community and grassroots organisations to form water volunteer groups which will then conduct house visits to educate home owners on water conservation practices and assist in the installation of water-saving devices.

Dengue

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Chairman, one of the regular complaints from my residents when I visit them is the menace of mosquitoes. Constantly, they are worried about the possibility of their loved ones coming down with dengue. This prompted me to ponder over the dengue situation that has affected Singapore last year where there was, as I understand, a 26% increase in dengue cases in the first nine weeks of 2009 in comparison to the situation in the same period in 2008.

Dengue fever is the most common mosquito-borne viral infection in the world and poses a serious public health threat to all of us in the Republic. The economic and social effects of dengue on households are significant and distressing. As we all know, if the head of your family gets infected, is unable to work and incurs medical cost, the spouse has to stay home for a while. Outstanding bills get piled up, kids get affected emotionally and sometimes, worst of all, someone passes away, that is, death comes a-knocking.

Of late, we have heard of the phrase encouraging productivity on the basis of cheaper, faster and better. I wonder if this endeavour can be applied to our mozzie busting efforts. Thus, can MEWR and NEA update us all on the dengue situation in 2009 so that the key lending points can be adapted and rolled out for implementation?

Having a better understanding of the key learning points from previous experiences on dengue control will ensure that the resources devoted to this cause will lead to effective operational policy approaches in keeping the dengue threat at bay.

Sustaining public cleanliness standards

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, after open-air concerts, public events and gatherings, the amounts of garbage left over pose hygiene problems. What measures are there that MEWR is adopting to ensure high levels of hygiene and cleanliness in Singapore? Will penalties for littering be made heavier?

Sir, very often, discarded receptacles are not cleared. They collect water that could lead to mosquito breeding. Could MEWR update us on the dengue situation and what are the measures being taken to keep the dengue situation under control?

Sir, the issue of rubbish chutes in older housing estates needs urgent remedy. These flats were built over 30 years ago of which we have several blocks in Boon Lay. And they have rubbish chutes which get choked up on a daily basis due to the constricted structure of the chutes. The stench and the sight just churn your stomachs. Contractors clear the choke by hacking the walls outside the chutes. But this may cause potential structural problems and it does not solve the problem. Is it possible to install rubbish compactors in households? If it is too costly, we can have rubbish compactors for common use on each floor.

Twenty years ago, when I visited Norway, rubbish compactors were installed in every household. Rubbish compactors will help to reduce the collection of bulky items thrown down the chutes. As Singapore will hit its six million population mark, what plans does MEWR have to make Singapore a clean and green city?

Licensing

Mr Ang Mong Seng: ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] As our population ages, we see more and more retirees selling tissues at hawker centres, coffee shops and malls to help with their expenses. They do not have CPF, yet they do not want to live by Government welfare – they want be independent. Unfortunately, this has attracted attention from Government officers who issue them warnings or even fine them.

I suggest the Ministry conduct an investigation among these tissue-selling seniors. If they are truly needy and need a job to make a living, they should be issued a licence or some kind of identity card so they can work at peace and provide a service that people need.

It will also prevent foreign groups from making an unethical profit from these tissue-selling old or disabled people, "killing two birds with one stone". Please give due consideration to this proposal.

*Cols. 3473-3474.

Enforcement action against littering

Mr Ong Kian Min (Tampines): Mr Chairman, 27,572 Singaporeans and 11,059 foreigners were caught littering in 2009. Looking at the sheer number of offenders caught, it is clear that littering in Singapore is still rampant. In particular, littering by foreign workers has long been recognised to be a problem.

The resentment felt by Singaporeans towards foreigners is fanned partly by clashes in habits and differing standards of behaviour. One habit of foreign workers that does not sit well with locals is littering. Foreign workers who gather at parks, void decks and other areas often leave behind an unsightly mess of beer bottles and leftover food. Every weekend, we see large crowds of foreign workers gathering at various places, like Little India. I have been informed by NEA that on a typical weekend night, more than 15,000 foreign workers could congregate in Little India. After a Saturday night, Little India is strewn with so much rubbish everywhere that people have to be careful where they step.

A 2008 article in the New Paper on littering by foreign workers described little India as "Litter India". Action must be taken to tackle the problem of littering which is a public health hazard. The efforts of NEA to educate foreign workers against littering have not gone unnoticed. However, education to change the littering habit of foreign workers will take time and has a limited effect.

To overcome the littering problem, we cannot rely on education alone. Enforcement is necessary. I would like to ask how many littering tickets are issued on a typical Saturday and Sunday for littering in Little India. Looking at the mess that is left behind, I assume that it will be very easy to catch litterbugs there.

What are the methods of enforcement? And are there more efficient ways of apprehending errant litterbugs?

NEA raised the composition fine for first-time minor littering offenders from $200 to $300 last year. I would like to ask: can and do the foreign workers that have been caught littering pay up this fine? Besides fines, are there other punitive measures that can deter foreign workers from littering? Are there any other measures besides education and enforcement being planned?

One initiative by NEA to control the littering in Little India was to increase the numbers of bins in Little India. As beer bottles, liquor bottles and empty food containers take up a lot of space and can fill up a bin within minutes, should the bins be larger, greater in numbers and cleared more frequently during the weekends so that the foreign workers have no excuse to litter? I hope that the NEA will find creative solutions to keep Singapore clean. This will certainly help to ease the brewing unhappiness of locals with foreign workers in Singapore.

Littering and noise pollution

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: Sir, early in January 2010, it was reported in the Straits Times that an average of 700 tickets were issued every month for littering in the parks. For the whole of 2009, more than 8,300 summonses were issued by NParks' enforcement officers. The situation is not better in the HDB heartlands. When we visit the HDB blocks in the morning, they are clean because of the town councils' cleaners. If we visit the same blocks later in the evening, they are dirty due to indiscriminate littering by either residents or visitors.

Sir, this situation is not acceptable. We have to take more steps to educate our residents and the users of our national parks that littering is an anti-social behaviour and must be discouraged. Everyone must have a responsibility to ensure that Singapore remains litter-free so that we can have a clean and beautiful environment that we can call "home".

May I ask the Minister what is MEWR's strategy to manage this littering problem? Does the Minister think that an anti-littering campaign or a "Keep Singapore Clean" campaign will help remind residents on the importance of not littering? Or for that matter, in November, instead of planting trees, can we then go on an anti-littering sweep-up of the estate? Would the Minister consider imposing a corrective work order on a first-time offender? Instead of a fine, the offender is involved in cleaning up the litter which he had contributed to. On the part of NEA, could the agency also take more steps to ensure that its cleaning contractors carry out their cleaning activities more regularly especially in the private estates?

Next, Sir, on the issue of noise pollution. During my house visits, I have frequently received feedback or complaints about noise coming from construction sites late at night. The noise from the construction sites disturbs the peace and tranquillity of the estate and residents are forced to keep their windows closed so as to alleviate the noise.

Sir, noise in the middle of the night tends to be exaggerated because there is less ambience noise in the surrounding. My residents complained that the movement of prime movers or the movement of cranes sound noisier late at night. Construction workers talking loudly during the wee hours of the morning also sound louder and more irritating. Some residents have even resorted to installing noise measuring instruments to prove that the noise created by these construction companies exceeds the limit allowed by NEA. May I know what is MEWR's approach to the noise pollution? Would MEWR consider restricting all construction works in residential areas after, say, 10 pm or not later than 12 midnight?

Sir, what about noise or loud music created by entertainment outlets located near residential areas late in the night? For these entertainment outlets, could there also be stringent enforcement to ensure that they are kept within the noise limit?

Noise pollution

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, construction projects are a sign of progress and renewal. They are a welcomed sight. However, in a small country like us, they inevitably caused inconvenience. The issue is how to balance different interests and whether we have got the balance right. I ask the Minister to review the balance where the issue of noise is concerned. I have raised this issue before but complaints from my residents compel another try.

This is an important issue as it affects our well-being. International organisations, such as the WHO, have highlighted the negative effects of noise on the physical, psychological and social functions of people. Currently, the environmental projection and management regulations set out the noise levels permitted at different areas. Their levels vary according to time, place and duration. The current regulations permit construction work to be carried out near housing estates on Sundays. It only provides for very slight adjustments in terms of timing and noise levels. For example, Part II of the Second Schedule states, "that the maximum permissible noise level between 7 am and 7 pm for construction sites affecting residential buildings located less than 150 metres away from the site is 75 decibels. From 7 pm to 10 pm, the contractor is allowed 55 decibels." In both cases, there is only a 15 decibel reduction from that allowed from Mondays to Saturdays.

But, more importantly, construction work does not progress at this steady hum. There will be instances where their work, over from time to time, exceeds the limit but not breaches the regulations because it is not sustained. This is of little comfort to those who have had their rest disturbed.

I make this plea for peace and quiet one day a week. I propose that construction activities near housing estates should cease or at least be heavily restricted on Sundays. Sir, Sundays are important time for recreation for most people. It may be the only time of the week that they get to rest at home or spend quality time with their families. Yet, the current law allows construction work to begin as early as 7 am on Sunday mornings and for construction work to continue throughout the day. This is not the case in some other developed countries. For example, in the United Kingdom, several town councils, including the city of London, prohibit construction work on Sundays and bank holidays. New York city goes further. The New York City Noise Control Code provides that construction activities can only take place on weekdays between 7 am and 6 pm. These cities recognise that managing areas of high human density requires special rules. Is there any reason why rules in Singapore are different? The inevitable argument is that such rules will delay projects and increase costs. However, has such a study been done to determine the extent of the increase? Are developers suggesting that such rules will not make development commercially viable? It is difficult to believe that.

In any event, can the developers not work smarter and conduct other kinds of activities on Sundays? Is this not a situation where we are leaning too much in favour of corporate interest? I therefore ask the Minister to review the rules on noise.

Food hygiene

Mr Liang Eng Hwa: Sir, I felt the need to re-visit the issue of food hygiene at public places such as hawker centres and coffeeshops as there is already no room for complacency. It is an area that we need to maintain constant vigilance so that incidents such as what happened at Geylang Serai Rojak stall will not happen again. Lapses in food hygiene at hawker centres can impact public confidence at public eating outlets. And we need to send a clear signal to stallholders.

With the increase of back-to-work women and double-income families, more and more families are dining out. The usual two-meals-out routine could soon become all-meals-out phenomenon. Hence, food safety and hygiene becomes essential and critical as Singaporeans eat out more often.

6.15 pm

Can the Minister provide an update on what has been done to strengthen the food hygiene regime since the incident?

Has the NEA done regular spot checks and what was the number of lapses in food and environment hygiene since the incident? Have there been improvements? Can the Minister also give an update on the rat situation at hawker centres and public eating outlets, which is becoming more noticeable?

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): I am pleased to inform Mr Masagos and Mdm Ho Geok Choo that we reduced dengue incidence by 36% last year compared to 2008. This is an encouraging achievement since many countries continued to see increases in dengue last year.

Our results in the last two years show that our integrated approach to dengue control has been successful. The key thrust of this approach is pre-emptive source reduction, which denies mosquitoes the place to breed. To this end, NEA enlists the participation of the community to ensure that everyone plays a part to prevent mosquito breeding.

Through its Environmental Health Institute (EHI), NEA also leverages research to guide its dengue control strategies. EHI has a dengue virus surveillance programme that gives us early warning of possible outbreaks and allows us to respond to these threats rapidly. The circulating dengue serotypes are also tracked closely, and this enabled us to avert several potentially serious outbreaks that are typically associated with serotype switches.

In addition, NEA is working closely with the World Health Organization to build up the capability of member countries to prevent and control dengue. Last year, NEA successfully hosted the first Asia-Pacific Dengue Workshop for government officials from 28 countries.

Although we had a good year in 2009, our fight against vector-borne diseases is a continuing one and the public has a key role to play. We must continue to take ownership and ensure that our living environment is free from mosquito breeding. We cannot afford to be complacent because any lapse will give dengue the chance to harm us and our loved ones, as Mr Masagos Zulkifli has alluded to earlier.

Sir, several Members, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Mr Ong Kian Min and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about efforts to sustain public cleanliness and deter littering. NEA adopts an integrated approach, comprising an effective cleaning regime, outreach programmes for the community, strict enforcement and penalties to deter litterbugs. Notwithstanding this, littering remains a concern.

NEA increased enforcement from 54 man-hours per day in 2006 to 442 man-hours per day last year. This resulted in an increase in the number of littering offenders caught from about 7,000 in 2006 to close to 41,400 last year. We also increased the penalty for first-time littering offenders from $200 to $300 last year.

Mr Ong Kian Min asked about the effectiveness of enforcement in Little India. As he pointed out, NEA has stepped up enforcement and education efforts targeted at foreign workers. Since the presence of enforcement officers also deters potential litter-bugs, the effectiveness of these efforts should not just be measured based on the number of tickets issued. I also wish to take this opportunity to point out that the majority of litter-bugs caught – over 70% last year – are locals. Littering is not a problem caused primarily by foreign workers. We will continue to focus our enforcement efforts on littering hotspots for maximum effectiveness. However, relying on enforcement alone is not sustainable, because it is highly resource-intensive. There is also a limit to increasing the frequency of cleaning, which NEA is already doing in areas with high human traffic and litter, such as Orchard Road.

NEA therefore commissioned a sociological study to deepen our understanding of why people litter. Preliminary findings suggest that people litter because they perceive it as “harmless”, or are too lazy to walk to the nearest bin. When the study is completed, NEA will use the findings to fine-tune its programmes against littering. For a start, we will review the number and placement of litter bins in public areas and the effectiveness of our anti-littering messages.

NEA is also proceeding with other measures to improve public cleanliness. As I mentioned, an effective cleaning regime is part of our strategy. NEA will introduce a voluntary accreditation scheme for the cleaning industry. This is aimed at both raising cleaning standards and helping us to upgrade the professionalism and productivity of the industry, in line with the national efforts to boost productivity. NEA is consulting the cleaning industry on the proposed scheme and expects to complete consultations by the end of the year. We will encourage Government agencies to engage accredited cleaning companies when the scheme is rolled out. NEA will also study whether to introduce compulsory licensing for the cleaning industry in the longer term.

Maintaining a high standard of cleanliness and hygiene requires the efforts of all stakeholders. NEA is therefore studying the feasibility of establishing a Public Hygiene Council, with representatives from the people, private and public sectors. The aim is for the Council to support the Government’s efforts to improve the consistency of standards in the cleaning industry, promote the improvement of hygiene standards in the community and recognise and share best practices.

Our long-term goal is to build greater community ownership of the environment so that people will not litter, even in the absence of enforcement. This is the only sustainable way for us to keep Singapore clean.

On another note, Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked if we would launch another anti-littering campaign. Let me say that indeed NEA is looking into launching a new anti-littering campaign in 2010, focus on action-oriented initiatives, such as getting the NGOs and community to do clean-up activities within the neighbourhood. NEA currently issues licences for street hawking from fixed locations, subject to the approval of the relevant Town Council or land agency. However, as tissue paper peddling is a very uncertain livelihood, we encourage elderly folk in need of financial assistance to instead tap on the employment and social assistance schemes which MCYS and the Community Development Councils (CDCs) have in place. When NEA officers come across such elderly persons in need of assistance, they refer them to the CDCs for follow-up. I would therefore like to urge Mr Ang and other Members of this House as well as members of the public to do the same, that is refer them to the CDCs.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about construction noise. NEA, as we all know, prescribes noise limits for construction sites, which vary according to the time of the day and by the types of premises nearby. Under the current limits, only quiet activities like painting and plastering are allowed at construction sites near residential areas after 10.00 pm. And Mr Lim Biow Chuan is smiling. [ Laughter ].

The current construction noise limits already protect residents from any adverse health impacts. However, Sir, we note that construction noise, especially on Sundays and Public Holidays, remains a concern to many residents, including myself. In 2008 and 2009, NEA received about 14,000 and 12,000 complaints on construction noise respectively, up from about 9,000 in 2007 and 6,000 in 2006.

NEA consulted the industry and other stakeholders on measures to minimise construction noise nuisance, while allowing construction to keep pace with development. Following these discussions, our long-term goal is to prohibit construction work at sites within 150 metres of residential areas and noise sensitive developments on Sundays and Public Holidays. We will implement the changes progressively to give the construction industry sufficient time to adjust.

Sites starting work from 1st September this year will not be allowed to carry out construction activities from 10 pm on the night before a Sunday or a Public Holiday to 10 am on the day itself. NEA will extend this prohibition to the rest of the day on Sundays and Public Holidays for sites starting work from 1st September 2011.

Sir, NEA is also tightening the noise standards for new and in-use vehicles. The revised standards for new vehicles, which are based on those currently implemented in Japan and the EU, will take effect from 1st October 2010. NEA’s consultation with motor traders indicates that there will be no significant impact on the availability of vehicle models as new vehicles currently in the market already comply with these standards. The revised standards for in-use vehicles will ensure that the exhaust systems on these vehicles continue to be well-maintained throughout their lifespan and will be effective from 1st April 2011.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about noise from entertainment outlets. The Police currently regulate the provision of public entertainment at entertainment outlets such as pubs, bars, KTVs and nightspots. These outlets are subject to licensing conditions, including limits on noise. In cases where persistent noise complaints are received, the Police work with NEA to conduct noise measurements and will impose penalties such as fines and demerit points if noise levels exceed the allowable limits.

Singapore is a highly urbanised city with vibrant economic activities, so noise nuisances cannot be avoided completely. My Ministry will continue to work with key stakeholders to regularly review the management of noise, taking into account public feedback and international best practices.

Sir, let me now move on to the issue of food hygiene. NEA has a comprehensive regime to regulate food hygiene standards in Singapore. As a result, the annual incidence of food poisoning outbreaks is low, with an average of four incidents per 1,000 food retail outlets between 2006 and 2009. Notwithstanding this, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa pointed out, we must continue to strengthen the regime.

Last year, the number of tickets issued for food hygiene-related offences was 2,650. This was about 14% lower than the 3,080 issued in 2008, but higher than the 2,212 tickets issued in 2007. Since January, NEA has been beefing up the number of food hygiene inspectors. We aim to improve the ratio of inspectors to food establishments from the current one per 800 to one per 400 outlets. The additional manpower will enable us to carry out more frequent inspections, which together with efforts by licensees and food handlers will help ensure good hygiene standards are observed at foodstalls and foodshops.

We have also taken a serious view of the administrative lapses involving the delays in the grading of foodstalls, which surfaced following the Geylang Serai food poisoning incident. NEA has since tightened its internal system to ensure that gradings are done in a timely manner and there are no delays in the issuing of grading decals. NEA’s management has also reprimanded officers responsible for not carrying out the gradings on time.

We are tightening the penalty regime. From April this year, NEA will raise the minimum composition sum for food hygiene offences from $100 to between $200 and $400, depending on the severity of the offence.

Licensees of food establishments are currently issued demerit points for public health lapses, and will have their licences suspended or revoked if they accumulate 12 or more demerit points within 12 months. As an additional measure, NEA will require food handlers working for licensees suspended from 1st April 2010 to re-take and pass the Basic Food Hygiene Course before they can resume practice.

We would also like operators of food establishments to place greater emphasis on the overall hygiene standards of their premises. NEA is introducing a Points Demerit System (PDS) for the main licensees of canteens, coffeeshops and food courts. Licensees who chalk up 24 demerit points for cleanliness-related offences within 12 months will be required to suspend their operation for up to three days to carry out thorough cleaning of their premises. The PDS will be implemented by the end of this year.

As for hawker centres, stallholders are currently required to conduct quarterly spring-cleaning of their centres. This regime has worked well and NEA will continue to work with the hawkers associations and Town Councils to ensure that it is carried out effectively. NEA will order a temporary closure of any hawker centre with poor standards of cleanliness for thorough cleaning.

6.30 pm

To provide the public with an additional avenue to highlight any lapses in cleanliness or hygiene standards, NEAhas launched a dedicated website for hawker centres. We hope this will further encourage stallholders to maintain a high standard of hygiene and cleanliness at all times.

Sir, we are also helping the industry to build up its capabilities to manage food hygiene and cleanliness. Since January this year, all school canteens are required to employ at least one trained Food Hygiene Officer to carry out checks on cleanliness and food hygiene practices. This requirement, Sir, will be extended progressively to other canteens, food courts and coffeeshops. NEA will also require all food handlers to attend a food hygiene refresher course once every three years.

Finally, Sir, NEA will progressively build up its capabilities to better assess and mitigate the risks presented at the different stages of food preparation and storage. This information will be used to educate food handlers and guide the inspection regimes.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa has a specific question on the rodent situation at our hawker centres. I would like to report that the rodent situation is generally not a problem. Over the past three years, only 3% to 8% of rodent sightings were in hawker centres. Our hawker centres have rodent control programmes to keep the situation in check. However, we are seeing an overall increase in rodent complaints over the past three years, including in areas at our bin centres, refuse chutes, construction sites and other places. As these are areas managed by the Town Councils, NEA has requested our Town Councils to tighten their refuse management and put in place rat control programme to address this problem and we will monitor this situation closely.

Sir, allow me now to give an update on the ABC Waters Programme. More than 20 projects are in the pipeline. So far, projects at Kolam Ayer, Bedok Reservoir, and the first phase of MacRitchie Reservoir have been completed. For the second phase of MacRitchie Reservoir, visitors can now expect a new food and beverage outlet and improvements to the bandstand and footpaths.

Works have also begun to transform the concrete canal along Bishan Park into a natural, meandering river that is seamlessly integrated into the park. Other interesting features include a water playground and a river promenade.

Sir, by the end of this year, we can look forward to the completion of another seven projects at Lower Seletar, Sungei Punggol, Pandan Reservoir, Jurong Lake, Sungei Whampoa, Sungei Kallang and Pang Sua Diversion Canal.

Sir, the Marina Reservoir hosted some 30 events in 2009, including the National Day Parade. Later this year, it will be one of the competition venues for the Youth Olympic Games. The PUB will continue to work with the STB and URA to bring in more exciting events and introduce more recreational water activities such as rowing.

But, Sir, looking beyond our reservoirs, the PUB launched the ABC Waters Design Guidelines last year to encourage developers to integrate innovative waterscapes into their developments. These features such as rain gardens, bio-retention swales, and wetlands act as natural purification systems to remove pollutants and improve water quality, while enhancing the aesthetics and biodiversity of our landscape. So far, more than 10 projects have been initiated. The PUB also intends to launch a certification programme later this year to recognise organisations that incorporate ABC Waters elements into their developments.

Sir, it is heartening to see that the ABC Waters Programme has been well-received so far, with many community events held at the completed sites. As PUB continues to implement more projects island-wide, we hope to encourage Singaporeans to get closer to and interact with water and, in the process, develop a sense of ownership towards our water resources and help to keep them clean.

Sir, we have a shared responsibility to ensure sustainable development. The Sustainable Singapore Blueprint highlighted the need to build a culture of environmental responsibility in Singapore. I notice Ms Sylvia Lim smiled when my Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amy Khor mentioned about the sociological study on littering, I hope she supports that. Sir, I am encouraged to see that there are already efforts by some groups to encourage the community to take ownership and do their part for the environment.

For instance, more than 6,000 residents in the South East District took part in quizzes on energy conservation in exchange for energy-saving light bulbs for needy households. In the North West District, a programme to educate residents on energy-saving habits related to computer usage is being rolled out to some 196,000 households and 70 schools.

Sir, our youths are also playing an active role. The National Youth Achievement Award Council has built up a strong network of NYAA Gold Award Holders' Alumni, many of whom are involved in efforts to encourage other youths to look after the environment. Many youth and visitors will be gathering in Singapore for the Youth Olympic Games this August. The organisers of the Games have taken pains to green the game venues. NTU's green club, Earthlink, also plans to engage the athletes on issues such as climate change and biodiversity in collaboration with UNEP.

Sir, our attitudes and actions will determine a sustainable future for Singapore. Let us start doing our part now to grow our economy sustainably and keep Singapore clean and green. Together, we can ensure Singapore remains a lively and liveable city for our children and generations to come.

Mr Chairman: We have some time for clarifications. Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, in the earlier answer to my cut, the Minister said that land is allocated at Sarimbun Recycling Park. Would the Minister not agree with me that the land allocated at Sarimbun Park, first of all, is remote? Secondly, the nature of the trade which I mentioned, basically the karang guni who do collection, sorting and packing, is quite different from the recycling factory that is set up there. Therefore, would he not agree that this company, with the nature of the trade, would need a different kind of allocation of land, and the location of the land is important because of the nature of the trade?

Second clarification, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister, since the Ministry has to do with sustainable environmental development and in which recycling is a main programme of the Ministry, would he not appreciate and recognise the efforts of these karang guni traders, who have played an important part, I believe, and also in the chain of the recycling industry since many years ago? If so, would the Ministry, in appreciation of them, have some programmes of funding to upgrade the industry and make the industry more productive?

And the third clarification is whether the Minister is aware that such karang guni trade, though it does not look like a proper trade, has actually helped many people to survive, in terms of giving some financial help to them on their own effort. I am sure many people will notice that there are a lot of senior citizens who go to the hawker centres to collect cans as their past time, and at the same time they have some income. So the industry is actually serving quite a lot of people, and it serves a purpose of financial help on their own effort. I believe that it deserves the Minister's attention to see how he can improve and upgrade the trade by giving them some incentives to improve.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, on the issue of location, as I mentioned in my reply, Sarimbun is actually fully leased out. So location is not an issue to the industry. They have been able to locate themselves in Sarimbun and operate quite effectively. At the moment, because there is a lack of space in Sarimbun, we are exploring with JTC and other Government land authorities to explore other options. In fact, companies at the moment, as mentioned in my reply, can write directly to the various Government agencies to get industrial land for that purpose.

On the issue of the karang guni men, I think we have to look at our recycling programme in its overall structure. We do have companies that collect waste, which are licensed by the Government and, therefore, we integrated the recycling programme with the waste collection companies so that they can do these things better. It does not mean there is no role for what you called the karang guni men. In fact, we have been told that some companies do work together with some of these operators. I am not sure whether the karang guni men are licensed, to begin with. If they are licensed, therefore, the appropriate industry sector will probably have to be addressed in terms of how to improve their productivity. They are definitely not licensed by NEA or MEWR. But the point is, we leave it to the industry to sort out on how best they can work together to achieve our goal. In terms of the waste collectors, because we licensed them and we have a plan where Singapore is broken up into nine sectors to ensure that there is sufficient coverage of waste collectors who can also do recycling. In the case of the karang guni men, for example, would they be prepared to do recycling from HDB flats, which is very tedious and very onerous? But the waste collecting companies are obligated to do so to provide a scheme to collect recyclables from HDB flats. As you know, it is very tedious to go house to house, door to door, floor to floor, to collect the recyclables, but our waste companies are doing that.

So, from the Government's point of view, we have to find an efficient overall recycling structure that can meet our needs. At the moment, the National Recycling Programme (NRP), which involves our waste collection companies, they are doing the job of collecting recyclables. But we are reviewing that and we are open to any suggestions on how best we can improve that. It is up to the industry to sort out how best they make use of the current existing players. If the karang guni men want to work together with some of the waste collection companies, which they can do, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. In our case, under the NRP, the waste collection companies are obligated to collect the recyclables from households on specific dates, either the first Monday or first Thursday of every two weeks or whatever, is left to them. And as I said the programme has worked, but I mentioned in my reply that there is room for us to improve in terms of some waste streams such as food waste. So we are looking into that. My response to Mr Low is that I think it is best for the industry to sort out itself and if there are ways in which the existing players are prepared to work with new players such as the waste collection companies, we should leave to the industry to sort that out.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Three clarifications: one, could the Minister update us on the prognosis for dengue fever or the dengue situation in 2010?

Second clarification: I had asked the question about the rubbish compacter because I still have a problem with the rubbish chutes in Boon Lay. As I said, it is a structural problem and one way to actually clear this issue of bulky recyclable materials disposal is really to look into some compacters to be installed, maybe in every household. If we cannot afford that, maybe on every floor?

And the third question I really have is with regard to the co-funding incentive, which Town Councils have, on employing dedicated personnel or the use of operations to control the dengue situation. When that incentive expires, will MEWR consider extending it?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Firstly, with regard to the question about the rubbish chute and rubbish compacter, I think we will have to bring the Member's suggestion and request to the HDB. HDB will need to work with the Town Councils because this is really a question of infrastructure.

Regarding the dengue situation, I am pleased to inform the House that the dengue incidence in the first two months of this year was 35% lower than that in the same period last year. But notwithstanding this, we need to continue to be watchful this year for several reasons, two of which are, firstly, the expected warmer ambient temperature due to the return of the El Nino effect. This may increase the rate of dengue transmission as mosquitoes reproduce faster and the dengue virus replicates faster and remains infective for a longer period of time. So, if the dry spell continues the impact would possibly be double-edged – increased local transmission and increased importation of viruses if we are not careful, and if we do not remain vigilant.

Secondly, the risk of a switch in predominant circulating serotype. Historically, the predominant circulating dengue sereotype switches every two or three years and such switches are often associated with an increased intensity of outbreaks. So, we are currently into our fourth year with Dengue II as the predominant serotype and the probability of a switch taking place is growing. Any switch in predominant serotype this year may see more outbreaks occurring again if we are not vigilant. To mitigate this risk, NEA has embarked on a island-wide source reduction exercise earlier this year. NEA will also alert the public of the start of the traditional season for dengue transmission. We would also like to urge everyone to maintain high vigilance and continue to play their part to keep their homes and premises, offices, work sites and so on, mosquito-free. Get rid of potential mosquito breeding sites as a source reduction, ie, removal of stagnant water, etc.

I think there is another question on co-funding of PCOs – the dedicated pest control operators for Town Councils. I think the dedicated pest control regime for all the 14 PAP Town Councils has worked very well and NEA is looking into the possibility and feasibility of extending this funding.

6.45 pm

Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the 60% recycling rate by 2012 is achievable. And what are we doing now to achieve that? Because we took one year to increase from 56 to 57, so I am not sure what is the 3%.

On another note, I would like to just caution against the licensing of karang guni men. My heart goes to all those people who have to earn a living by collecting all these collectables. By licensing them now, my fear is that you will put more of them out of job because it is an informal employment and many of them depend on it. Certainly helping them is the key thing. We hope the Ministry can explore ways on how to get them work closer with the waste collectors, and then together we form an eco-system that can help them better, rather than just licensing them.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: I thank Dr Lim for the second suggestion. I am sure Mr Low would agree that that is the best way for us to approach the problem.

On the recycling rate of 60% by 2012, as I mentioned in my reply, you have to look at specific waste stream now in order to achieve that 2%-3% increment that we are looking for. So we are going to focus our minds on food waste as one potential source that we can reduce. But at the same time, for domestic waste, there is still some room for improvement. What we are doing now is that we are reviewing the National Recycling Programme (NRP), together with the waste collectors, on how best we can increase the number. There are some suggestions that we are now working through internally before we consult the industry and the waste collectors on what more they can do. We are looking into the number of bins, the frequency of collection, etc. There are some cost implications obviously but this is something which we have to study very carefully because we have to be mindful of the potential impact on the industry in order to improve on our recycling of waste.

So, I want to assure Dr Lim that we are working on this target. It is a commitment that we have given that we want to achieve this target, and I am confident that we are able to do so, bearing in mind that we have reached quite far. So far, in our efforts, I think the improvements can bear the fruits that we want.

Mr Ang Mong Seng: Mr Chairman, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the main concern for the Ministry in not issuing licence to the elderly to sell tissue papers in the hawker centre. We are asked to refer all these people to the Community Development Council (CDC). In fact, I am referring this group of people, who are old and are not able to take up any job. Even if I refer them to CDC, I think they may not be able to offer any job to this group of people. So I would like to propose that the Ministry consider implementing this scheme as a pilot project for one year, so that we can review it in the next COS.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, indeed, we empathise with these needy elderly and we want to applaud them for wanting to be self-reliant. In fact, it is really because we have the interest of these needy elderly at heart that we are proposing that the first port of call is not NEA but the CDC or MCYS, so that the CDC can assess the situation they are in and the type of help they need in order to provide adequate and appropriate help. If they are physically fit for employment, CDC would refer them for employment assistance or put them on job preparatory training or skills upgrading in order that they would be eligible for employment. If they are not fit for employment, CDC will have to assess the situation and perhaps provide financial assistance. In fact, for NEA's Street Hawking Licence, there are several criteria that they have to comply with. Firstly, of course, they have to be 45 years and above, that is, elderly – so I am considered elderly. They also have to be physically fit to conduct business. If, as what the Member is saying, they are not physically fit, then really they would not even be eligible for the Street Hawking Licence. But notwithstanding that, let me say that NEA continues to review its policies on Street Hawking Licence all the time, and we will take the Member's views into account.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Sir, I just want to ask the Minister two clarifications.

I had asked that the Minister consider mandating the ambient temperature in public buildings at 24 degrees. He said, well, the guideline is within 22.5 to 25.5. I am fine with that. But if I heard him correctly, he said that there are no plans in the short term as well as the long term to consider my suggestion. I think that is a bit too strong a position. I hope he will not shut the door to this suggestion.

I am glad to hear that the NEA has been working with public agencies to make sure that major and national events that are organised are more "green". I recall that in the last few years, every year at the countdown party held at the Marina, there were all these huge white plastic balls where we were asked to pen our wishes. I have not done any of them. They are visually very interesting, very impactful, but certainly environmentally most unfriendly. I would like the Minister's views on this.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I would like to assure Mr Seah that the door remains open for us to consider mandating temperature in large buildings but when that door will remain open or close is up for further discussion.

On the second point on those white balloons in which people were asked to pen their thoughts for the New Year, we have a strict rule about what they can put into our reservoir and what they must do after that. And so even though it is on the Marina Reservoir, they must clean it up immediately. But his point as to whether or not the use of the balloons is right, because it is plastic, we will put this point across to the organisers to see whether or not there are other ways that they can do this in an environmentally-friendly manner.

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister on a "smelly" issue, ie, the food waste in hawker centres. If you go down to all the bin centres, it is really indeed very smelly. Currently, the waste collection company and the system itself do not encourage the hawker stallholders to segregate their food waste. I would like the Minister to review this system because I would like to encourage the hawkers to do this food waste segregation so that in the long term, the food waste – because of technology – could be recyclable, and we can reduce the total waste overall. Can the Minister let us know of the Ministry's plan in terms of the segregation of food waste?

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, as the Member would know, there were some trial projects with some hawker centres with a local waste collection company where they collect food waste from various hawker centres, markets and food outlets. The trial has been quite successful and, as I mentioned in my reply, we are now looking at food waste as a potential source for us to reduce the amount of waste going to our landfill. Obviously, we cannot ignore the food waste that has been generated in our hawker centres and food outlets. The problem is, of course, because the centres are scattered all over the island, it is very difficult to do so. But we are not letting the challenge go away. We are exploring some ways and means in which we can do that. So I want to assure the Member that this has been looked at seriously by the NEA because, as I mentioned earlier, in order to achieve the 60% recycling target, this food waste stream has to be our target. So I would like to assure the Member that this is being studied by the NEA.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair: Sir, the Minister mentioned that there are long-term plans to stop construction activities on Sundays and public holidays altogether. I think many will welcome that announcement. But could the Minister be a bit more specific on when these long-term plans will be implemented?

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, I mentioned in my reply that it will come in full effect exactly 1st September 2011. From 1st September 2011, all construction sites within 150 metres of residential areas cannot do any activities within Sundays and public holidays. We will start from 1st September this year 2010 only for one part of the day and then we will extend it to next year. The reason is that companies have to factor this in their tender for contract, and so we need to allow companies to progressively work their way through to manage the amount of time that is available for them to do their construction.

Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, my question is about eco-friendly events because the Minister has informed us that NEA has a set of guidelines, and the NDP and other events are run according to those guidelines. As Singapore becomes a much more vibrant city, we can expect more outdoor events being organised, and some will be by private organisers. So, how would NEA work with them in order to ensure that they are more "green" friendly?

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, we certainly do that. In fact, on some of the occasions where we see that events have been advertised – and these are very big events – we will contact the organisers and see how we can work with them in order to ensure that the events are eco-friendly. We do this with a lot of Government programmes like the National Day Parade and other events organised by the Government, but private companies are also our target because they also generate waste. I am sure they can learn from the best practices that we have adopted so far.

The Chairman: We have 20 minutes already of clarification time.

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to address the question which I raised, which is whether or not there are best practices in recycling in other cities which we can adopt in Singapore.

Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, my apologies. Of course, there are. In some other cities, for example, there are laws to mandate food recycling in some outlets. We have studied across many different types of cities, from Tokyo to Melbourne, to London, and see what are the best practices we can adapt to Singapore. So, in fact, some of the things that we are doing now are not new. They have been adopted in some other cities like Sydney and Melbourne. I do not have the list here. After today, I can pass it to Mr Foo some of the ideas that we have learned from other cities.

But having said that, the thing that we have to remember is that of course every city differs. In the case of Japan, there is a law to mandate the recycling of e-waste. Automatically, when you buy an electric appliance, for example there is already a built-in cost in which you have to recycle that television set or whatever to the same company that you buy because they are obligated to pick it up. So these are some of the things in which we have to study because there are impacts on the business sector in Singapore. But having said that, on some on these things, we will be consulting the various stakeholders in Singapore on what is the best way for us to move forward.

I mentioned food waste just now as one of the areas that we want to target. The legislation that is available in other countries may be too onerous for our companies but we have to study what is the best way for us to do this. Because unless we get some of the large food outlets to adopt some of these practices, it is very difficult for us to achieve the last two or three points that we want in terms of our recycling target of 60%.

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Minister Yaacob and SPS Amy Khor for their comprehensive replies. I also like to congratulate them especially for the ABC Water Programme which was very well received by the public.

Sir, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $769,773,400 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $321,100,800 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.