预算辩论 · 2026-03-03 · 第 15 届国会
2026环境可持续部供给委员会辩论：AI增强气候韧性
MSE Committee of Supply 2026 — AI for Climate Resilience
MSE供给委员会辩论中，议员质询MSE是否探索利用AI增强新加坡气候韧性举措。讨论聚焦于利用最新技术预测极端天气事件，以及AI在提升项目精准度方面的潜力。多名议员关注气候变化对新加坡的实际影响以及技术应对手段。
关键要点
- • 探索AI增强气候韧性
- • 利用AI预测极端天气事件
- • 提升气候项目精准度
积极探索AI在气候适应中的应用
Pritam Singh和Dennis Tan参与辩论
AI气候应用进入政策议程
参与人员（6）
完整译文（中文）
Hansard 英文原文译文 · 翻译日期：2026-05-02
主席：可持续发展与环境部（MSE）L项下。Poh Li San 女士。
晚上7点
国家适应计划
Poh Li San 女士（Sembawang West）：主席先生，我提议，“将估算表中L项下的总拨款减少100元”。
气候问题具有双重性质，既是全球公共问题，又有地方影响。在后者方面，新加坡在全球范围内因愿意今天投入公共资金以保障未来的住房和就业而脱颖而出。
让我以樟宜机场的第五航站楼（T5）为例。T5将建在填高至高于新加坡其他地区的主海平面5.5米的土地上。与此同时，在Pulau Tekong岛附近，我们为军事用途填海造地，面积相当于两个大巴窑镇。Tekong围垦地低于海平面1.2米，由6米高的海堤保护。
为了提醒我们长期规划的意义，“长岛”项目最早在30年前的1991年概念规划中提出，作为保护东海岸的综合计划，融合多项工程以确保海岸防洪、雨水收集和土地供应。
这些都是新颖的理念，政府承诺投入数十亿资金以保护我们的低洼地区，确保新加坡在气候变化的世界中持续立足。
我必须强调，我支持我们在这些长期问题上的支出，因为建设和为未来做准备的时间就是现在。问题是真实且紧迫的，尽管它们是长期的，看似遥远。
作为人类，我们都存在长期折现偏差。如果我们现在的日常生活都难以维持，人们又怎会关心长期规划？国家适应计划的支出可能与我们当前的需求脱节。坦率地说，许多人根本不关心这些计划。
因此，我想问部委如何计划与公众沟通适应基础设施的必要性？国家适应计划将如何在社区内提升气候素养和意识，培养气候韧性文化？
其次，我们基于当前最佳知识实施这些政策。我也提到政府采用了新颖的解决方案。在这方面，我想了解气候科学的进展。部委与哪些国际气候研究机构建立了合作伙伴关系，以增强新加坡的气候科学能力？新加坡如何提升气候监测和预测能力，更好地理解本地气候影响并指导适应决策？
气候变化将以多种方式影响我们。地下空间如何？如果降雨过大，我们现有的排水、堤顶和泵站系统是否仍能有效防止雨水和洪水？我们是否期望建筑业主在基础设施加固方面做更多工作，就像海岸保护那样？
主席先生，我谈到了今天为明天花费的必要性，以及说服新加坡人这是国家和财政责任。我也要求全面考虑如何将科学和证据服务于我们。这些将帮助像我这样的新加坡人理解我们为何如此支出，以及数十亿公共资金投入未来时的审慎考量。
【（程序文本）提案提出。（程序文本）】
岛屿系统韧性
Nadia Ahmad Samdin 女士（宏茂桥）：主席，作为一个岛国，新加坡的安全和可持续性与我们的海岸、水域和海洋生态系统的健康密切相关。气候变化对这些相互关联的系统施加压力。海平面上升影响海岸保护。更强烈的降雨考验防洪韧性，海水变暖影响水产养殖稳定性。
我想就两个主要方面征询部委意见。首先，关于防洪韧性。
我们观察到自1980年以来，年均降雨量和强降雨频率增加，年降雨量每十年约增加83毫米。虽然新加坡逐步升级排水基础设施，但仅为极端暴雨事件设计排水系统既不实际也不经济。随着降雨强度预计增加，极端事件期间可能需要在社区层面管理剩余的洪水风险。部委能否分享新加坡如何加强社区防洪韧性，包括公众准备和洪水易发区的地方响应能力？部委是否考虑制作地图或改进预警系统？
其次，关于气候韧性、农业和食品韧性。截至2023年，新加坡拥有98个海基和33个陆基水产养殖场。大多数养殖场集中在近岸海域，海域空间和环境条件影响养殖场的可行性。部委能否提供水产养殖场数量的最新趋势，包括整合或退出情况，以及这些趋势对行业可持续性的指示？这些沿海养殖场对周围海洋环境高度敏感，经历了环境压力。部委能否分享水产养殖场如何向气候韧性系统转型，如混合或循环农业技术，以及支持计划的采用率、行业转型程度和推广此类技术的主要挑战？
除了提高生产力，持续的本地产品需求也很重要。为提升本地需求以应对进口竞争，我了解到部委与行业合作伙伴合作建立了行业级供需聚合平台。部委能否评估其在增强本地产品需求方面的效果及未来支持市场发展的计划？公众还能如何参与？
我们水域的气候压力不是孤立存在的。随着风险加剧，适应将变得更复杂且成本更高。若我们的岛国城市国家要具备韧性，必须从基础设施到产业再到个人，强化系统完整性。
气候适应能力建设
Syed Harun Alhabsyi 博士（义顺）：主席，气候变化对新加坡构成严重且不可否认的挑战，对当代及未来世代产生深远影响。作为当代资源的管理者，我们有责任确保未来新加坡人拥有可持续且宜居的环境。
新加坡第三次气候变化研究（V3）提供了新加坡及区域的气候预测，涵盖当前至本世纪末。即使我们采取基于科学的气候适应方法，依赖气候预测，预测仍存在误差和不确定范围。预测受全球碳排放影响不均的因素制约，我们可能比预测更早遭遇不利气候影响，且影响更为严重和极端。
因此，我们必须持续适应。适应的关键部分是今天建设气候韧性能力，以保障国家和人民。
首先，新加坡如何提升气候监测和预测能力，以获得更准确的预测，并提前预见极端天气等气候变化影响？MSE将如何利用最新技术支持这些努力？部委是否探索利用人工智能（AI）增强新加坡气候韧性举措，提升预测能力？
我想象气候监测和预测工作依赖众多因素，可能有多种组合，若预测错误后果可能极端。我认为现在是将AI纳入此类工作的时机，潜力巨大。
其次，气候变化的直接影响公众已感受到，并对健康和福祉等后续结果产生影响。例如，在高热应激时进行户外活动，如户外工作或学校体育课，可能增加热相关伤害风险。随着天气预报能力提升，我们如何更好地为公众提供及时信息，帮助其主动且明智地调整日常活动，以保护健康免受极端天气变化影响？
热韧性
Ng Shi Xuan 先生（Sembawang）：主席，热韧性不仅是环境问题，更是公共健康、生产力和基础设施问题。
相关机构已采取实际措施。人力部（MOM）工作场所安全与健康理事会加强了户外工人的热应激管理指南。国土发展部（MND）试点冷涂层并纳入城市设计措施以增强通风，减少社区热积累。MSE通过海岸保护等措施推进长期适应。
这些努力重要，但气温上升跨越多个部委、行业和系统。我们应迈向更协调的框架。
在电池行业，每升高一度的运行温度都会降低性能和寿命。同样，更高的环境热度会加速基础设施磨损，增加冷却负荷，降低各行业工人生产力。
我建议三个协调方向。
第一，建立跨部委热韧性框架，将工作场所热应激指南与建筑设计标准、社区规划和工业运营对齐。MOM、MSE、MND和贸易及工业部（MTI）应协同推进，使工人安全、城市设计和经济生产力视为同一系统。第二，将被动降温作为基础策略推广。第三，加强数字化热监测。
为实现此目标，我们可试点热韧性工业园区或园区。在一个明确区域内整合热应激指南、被动降温设计、通风规划和传感器监测。重要的是，我们不仅衡量工人生产力，还评估基础设施耐久性、维护频率和能耗。这使我们能量化适应的经济影响，而非仅环境效益。
海岸保护保障国家长期资产，热韧性保障人民和经济系统。跨部委协调方法确保系统性适应，而非孤立行动。
弱势群体的热韧性
David Hoe 先生（裕廊东-武吉巴督）：主席，我想谈谈热韧性，特别关注弱势群体。过去两个月天气总体凉爽宜人，但我们必须承认，全年大部分时间及可预见未来，炎热仍是问题。
对许多新加坡人来说，炎热天气是日常现实，但负担不均。儿童、老人、居住在通风较差小型组屋或无空调家庭的居民更易受高温影响。户外工人，包括新加坡人和外籍劳工，从事建筑、园林和送餐工作，长期暴露于热和雨中。
在为弱势群体建设热韧性新加坡方面，我有三点建议。
第一，关于公众指导。好消息是我们已有热应激预警，这是良好基础。但指导可更易懂、更有针对性。
我们必须问自己：谁是热易感群体？他们知道这些预警吗？知道是一回事，能理解信息又是另一回事。尤其是儿童和老人，他们在较低热阈值下可能出现健康影响。我们还应问，这些预警是否适龄且易于执行？例如，儿童或老人阅读后，能否明白何时做何事？
可及性和意识还取决于语言和传播渠道。我们应将关键指导翻译成主要语言，且针对目标群体，内容不宜冗长或技术化。信息应放置在显眼处，如学校、社区接触点、公共区域、电梯厅和熟食中心。
鉴于年轻人、老人及外籍劳工常用社交媒体，我们也应通过这些渠道传播相关信息。尤其是4月至7月期间，新加坡热度最强。
第二，谈家庭脆弱性。热韧性计划应优先考虑应对能力有限者。一个实用方法是优先在居民实际活动场所实施微型干预，如有遮蔽且通风的连廊、公共设施附近的凉爽候车区，以及居民聚集的公共走廊和电梯厅的降温措施。
我还建议MSE和国家环境局（NEA）与建屋发展局（HDB）及市镇理事会合作，利用简单指标识别所谓“热点组屋”，例如通风差、附近无空调场所（社区中心、图书馆或商场）且步行距离内缺乏此类设施的组屋，并实施微型干预。
第三，我们需要更好数据以针对高风险区域实施干预。发布更多关于热暴露和热相关事件的信息将有助。特别是户外工人值得关注，他们无法避免高温时段。
若能建立各行业户外热暴露基线估计，将有助加强对高热风险群体的支持，包括制定行业特定指南、加强建筑工地执法，或提供实际资源，如休息区、补水设施和基于实际工作条件的工作休息协议。
热与水韧性
Valerie Lee 女士（巴西立-樟宜）：我先声明，我曾在一家能源和公用事业公司工作，该公司运营工业废水和新生水资产。主席，热与水塑造我们的国家话语。一个每天施压于我们，另一个默默支撑我们。
热影响孩子玩耍、老人锻炼和工人通勤。水支撑每个家庭、熟食中心、医院和产业。这些非抽象问题，是影响舒适度、健康和经济韧性的日常现实。
政府通过国家热韧性战略做得很好，体现在全国手册如城市重建局（URA）2025年草案总体规划，针对城市热岛问题，以及自2024年起对高耗水项目实施强制水回用以增强水韧性。但仍有提升空间，我先谈热韧性，再谈水韧性。
新加坡地表平均气温自1948年至2024年每十年上升约0.25°C，约为全球变暖速度的两倍。我们现面临持续超过34°C的日子和更暖的夜晚。热影响睡眠、生产力和长期健康。儿童脱水更快，体温调节能力较差。老人面临热应激、心血管压力和住院风险。这不仅是舒适度问题，更是宜居性问题。
我想问部委如何与国土发展部（MND）、交通部（MOT）及其他机构合作，加强全政府热适应计划？部委正在研究哪些新颖方案？政府是否关注冷铺装、反光材料及利用数据驱动的热力图支持弱势社区？
我想提出一项建议。第一，从高密度住宅或通勤点延伸有盖人行道至交通枢纽，争取实现100%覆盖。第二，应提供资金确保所有游乐场和健身站（包括现有设施）配备使用安全耐热材料如张拉膜的顶棚。这样，儿童户外游戏和老人积极老龄化将成为可实现的国家现实。
如果说热是我们的日常压力，水则是战略保障。我对水相关话题有特别兴趣，因我第一份全职工作是工业废水厂工程师，见证了16年前樟宜东首个大型新生水厂的启用。
我的职业经历提醒我，尽管土地有限且无天然含水层，我们作为国家在水战略上极具创新。关于四大国家水源，已有许多讨论，但我想请部委向本院更新最新水战略，考虑气候变化因素？四大水源依赖是否发生变化？目前各水源占比与十年前相比如何？
此外，我们经常讨论如何获得水资源，却较少谈及我们损失了多少水。请问新加坡过去两年的记录水损率是多少？与国际水平相比如何？我所关心的管理共管公寓（MCST）曾报告过爆管事件，怀疑与附近的国家建设项目有关。部委采取了哪些保障措施以防止基础设施损坏并减少非收益水损失？水资源韧性不仅仅是多元化供应，还包括保护我们生产的每一滴水。
主席，抗热韧性需要上游设计，水资源韧性需要上游规划，两者都要求预见性和协调性。通过提前规划更凉爽的社区和安全的水系统，我们保护我们的孩子、长者和未来。新加坡因早做准备而繁荣发展。让我们以清晰和决心继续这一传统。
可靠的长期回收运营
阿卜杜勒·穆海敏·阿卜杜勒·马利克议员（盛港）：主席，2024年我们的回收率降至最低点。今年我们启动了饮料容器回收计划，这是一个关键机会，可以协调并强化我们的整体回收基础设施。挑战不仅仅是污染问题。虽然建筑和拆除废料的回收率达到99%，但家庭回收率却呈现不同的情况。
根据国家环境局（NEA）2024年的统计，塑料回收率仅为5%，玻璃为8%。许多投入蓝色回收桶的物品实际上被焚烧或出口，而非真正回收。我们需要多方面的策略。
首先，利用政府采购力量，创造对再生材料的保证需求。扩大现有绿色采购框架，强制建筑材料、包装和办公用品中最低再生含量，为回收运营商提供投资所需的确定性。这一市场信号将波及私营部门。
其次，我欢迎国家环境局探索将生产者延伸责任（EPR）扩大至更广泛的包装废弃物，特别是塑料，占我们家庭废弃物的三分之一。配合强制回收含量要求，将解决当前仅5%塑料回收可行的经济障碍。
第三，通过在新建住宅区试点，逐步升级我们的蓝色回收桶系统。首先引入有机废弃物分类，配备带污染传感器的智能回收桶。新加坡的零废弃目标需要真正回收的回收系统。我们的市民应享有环境诚信和经济可行的系统。
公共废物收集者回收物品的收集
普里塔姆·辛格议员（亚历山大）：经过多年的公众教育，越来越多的新加坡家庭在将回收物投放到组屋附近的蓝色回收桶前，会进行去污染和分类。然而，对于部署较小的660升带轮回收桶的住宅区，仍存在一些实际问题。
指定的废物收集者每周已进行三次收集。对于配备较大侧装回收桶的住宅区，收集安排为每周两次。这些较大回收桶即使在非节日期间也很快装满。这部分是由网购增长和网购包装废弃物增加驱动的。当回收桶溢出，回收物暴露时间延长，回收物污染的可能性增加。原本在投放点完全可回收的物品，可能变得不可回收。
作为一个生态系统，这种发展可能破坏我们辛苦培养的回收行为。国家环境局使用哪些指标来决定是否应增加较大回收桶的收集频率？我理解国家环境局可临时要求增加收集，但部委是否同意，收集频率必须跟上居民改进和普及的回收习惯？
推动更绿色的未来
李慧颖议员（义顺）：主席，过去几个月，我的居民和政府议会委员会（GPC）议员同事教会我，持续性不仅是政策目标，更是一种生活方式。
从义顺绿色节到零废弃倡议，我们看到当人们承担责任时的可能性。全国即将推出的国家适应计划将进一步推动这一议程。但来自基层的反馈很明确：我们可以且必须做得更好。
我们的回收率在提升，但蓝色回收桶污染，尤其是食物废弃物污染，仍是持续问题。太多可回收物最终变成垃圾。随着实马高岛填埋场即将饱和，每一袋可避免的废弃物不仅是垃圾，更是我们用尽空间的倒计时。因此，上游废弃物减少至关重要。
我有以下问题。
第一，部委是否考虑扩大《资源可持续法》和《好撒玛利亚人食物捐赠法》的范围，引入更强的上游废弃物减少义务，并改善数据报告要求，以更好支持循环经济成果？是否有计划设定强制包装废弃物减少目标，而非主要依赖回收率？
第二，国家适应计划的公众咨询计划如何？将采用哪些可衡量指标评估社区层面的影响？
第三，我们赞扬企业减排的快速成果，但适应投资——即保护我们免受洪水、热浪和其他气候冲击的投资——常被忽视。为何？因为回报长期、较不显著且难以衡量。如何激励私营部门有意义地投资适应措施？
如果不平衡减缓与适应，我们可能建造一个纸面上美好但在真实气候压力下脆弱的未来。
克服塑料回收挑战
丹尼斯·陈立丰议员（后港）：新加坡整体回收率保持在50%以上，但这一数字主要由几乎完全回收的工业废弃物支撑。除此之外，情况迅速恶化。塑料现为最大体积废弃物，但塑料回收率从2013年的11%大幅下降至2024年的仅4.6%。
据估计，塑料制造消耗的化石燃料与整个航空业相当，同时使用过的塑料如果回收，具有高经济价值。为何制造新塑料增加碳足迹，而不重复利用回收塑料？随着气候变暖和实马高预计2035年填满，我们的容错空间极小。
这一表面表现与实际结果的差距反映了更深层的结构性问题。新加坡环境理事会研究发现，废物管理者认为回收塑料经济上具有挑战性，因为本地需求不足。他们得出结论，除非回收塑料需求增加，否则塑料回收率不会改变。同时，新加坡回收系统高度依赖全球市场条件。
当回收材料需求减弱、运费上涨或进口国收紧污染标准时，出口回收物变得昂贵或不可行。中国国家盐政策及其他类似措施后尤为明显。在此情况下，市场参与者理性选择最便宜的方案，通常是焚烧。
焚烧减少填埋体积，但塑料基于化石燃料，燃烧释放化石碳进入大气。因这些排放被计为废弃物处理而非气候影响，回收不佳可通过能源回收在言辞上抵消。但实际结果是可回收塑料被销毁，且继续依赖新制造塑料。
这带来风险，即焚烧被视为环保表现，实则可能消耗更多化石燃料，同时维持回收激励薄弱的现实。
若真想实现《新加坡绿色计划》提出的循环经济转型，必须建立一个即使外部市场条件恶化也能维持回收的生态系统。
当塑料回收商业不可行时，我们必须继续寻找减少对焚烧依赖的方法。
我们可考虑将生产者延伸责任从饮料容器扩展至所有包装，包括电子商务邮寄袋和食品外卖容器，基于强制包装报告。这将成本上移，改善包装设计，并资助必要的收集和分拣能力，实现有效回收。
为创造再生塑料需求，政府也可强制塑料瓶、包装和商品含有最低比例的再生塑料。欧盟和加州已实施此类规定。政府还可利用公共采购作为市场支点。学校、医院和机构可通过仅采购由再生塑料制成的塑料桶、路障、管道和公园家具来创造需求。
例如，瑞士的瑞士塑料管回收倡议正致力于建立土木工程和建筑用塑料管的回收系统。再生塑料有望成为战略材料——
晚上7点30分
主席：许慧欣女士。
支持绿色可持续生活方式
许慧欣议员（马西岭-裕廊西）：主席，面对气候变化挑战，我们作为社区必须共同努力，建设更具韧性和环保意识的新加坡。我们今天的努力旨在为未来世代保障宜居环境。
在2026年预算前，作为人民行动党（PAP）气候行动小组的常规外展活动一部分，我与GPC议员同事宝丽珊女士、何大卫先生共同举办了主题为“可持续生活：创造零废弃和循环经济”的活动。超过30名气候活动家、社区领袖和利益相关者参与了热烈讨论，探索现有措施及新方法，促进日常生活中的可持续发展。
通过讨论和头脑风暴，我们得出结论：要说服新加坡人养成减少废弃物、能源和水消耗的绿色习惯，必须有三大支柱支撑我们的努力和政策。第一，加强教育；第二，改善基础设施；第三，增强激励。
虽然可持续发展是全球使命，但新加坡方式必须“量身定制”和“测量管理”，适应我们独特的城市环境，设定明确指标跟踪进展并不断优化方法。我们需要有针对性且多样的政策，整体上能引起普通新加坡人的共鸣并加以管理。
基于此，我提出几个问题，请环境与水资源部回应。首先，关于一次性塑料袋收费的成效。该措施于2023年中在大型超市推行，已显示良好效果，至少大型超市报告塑料袋使用减少达80%。这一引导促使许多人携带可重复使用袋，减少堵塞填埋场和海洋的塑料废弃物。然而，随着一次性塑料袋收费即将满三年，我想问部委：该计划在全新加坡减少一次性塑料袋消费的最新数据如何？我们能从中吸取哪些经验应用于更广泛的废弃物减少？
第二，关于气候友好家庭计划下的气候券。该计划为节能和节水电器提供代金券，最近增加了100元，总额达400元，并延长至2027年12月31日适用于私人住宅。
看到此类激励措施使可持续选择更易获得，令人欣慰。借鉴西北社区发展理事会（CDC）“西北绿色家园”等创新本地项目，奖励居民采用环保做法（如使用气候券购买高效电器）最高可获500元电子券，我建议环境与水资源部考虑如何借此势头。
部委能否分享气候券计划是否会延续至2027年后，或是否有计划推出类似“西北绿色家园”的全国版本，或设立多层次奖励以鼓励多项绿色行动，扩大激励和教育覆盖全新加坡各区？
第三，即将于2026年4月1日启动的饮料容器回收计划（BCRS）。该押金退还系统涵盖塑料和金属饮料容器，由BCRS有限公司管理，启动时将在全岛1000多个逆向自动售货机提供每个容器10分的退款，目标在第一年内翻倍。
通过让生产者承担责任，消费者积极参与，该计划从源头解决废弃物问题，同时改善回收基础设施。为确保成功，部委能否提供更多关于计划运营细节的信息，包括未兑换押金的管理，以及通过教育活动和便捷回收点争取新加坡人广泛支持的策略？
BCRS的成功或许取决于公众支持。我们已听取受影响业主和消费者的意见，最大挑战在我看来是让所有人参与。
最后，2024年是新加坡生态基金（SG Eco Fund）成立六周年。该基金于2020年启动，资金为5000万元，支持社区驱动的可持续项目，从小规模“萌芽”资助（现永久上限3万元）到更大型项目。
这一里程碑彰显了自下而上的行动。部委是否有计划扩大基金范围，或增加整体资金，引入气候适应新类别，或与更多部门合作，激发社会各阶层更广泛参与？
总结，拥抱绿色可持续生活方式不仅关乎政策，更关乎赋能每位新加坡人发挥影响。通过优先教育、加强基础设施和提升激励，我们能衡量进展，明智管理资源。
粮食安全、韧性与安全
宝丽珊议员：主席，感谢允许我就此重要议题发言。首先，我们注意到新加坡已从“30%自给”转向“食品故事2”。推测这是因为原目标被认为难以实现——未达目标本身并非重大失败。政策制定如同体育和生活，设定挑战性目标很重要。
同时，有两点重要区别。第一，基准设定。“2030年满足30%食品需求”不可能是简单数字游戏，必基于政策假设。部长能否说明哪些初始假设未达预期？包括——首先，从大型城市农场和植物蛋白企业失败中学到了什么？环境与水资源部现在能做什么不同以提升本地生产？
第二，新食品目标更具体，针对特定食品类型。例如，到2035年，生产20%的纤维需求和30%的蛋白质需求。部长能否解释这些目标如何形成？是否基于新加坡土地面积和比较优势？目标必须基于具体客观假设，听听部长说明将很有价值。
最后，尽管我们努力实现新目标，但大部分食品仍依赖进口。请问部长关于食品来源多元化和全球合作的策略？空运新鲜食品成本日益高昂。富裕者仍能享用多样新鲜食品，但普通新加坡人可能需限制饮食。我们不必确保人人都能吃到芦笋和松露，但希望大多数家庭能负担得起新鲜鱼类和蔬菜。环境与水资源部如何应对这一问题？
最后，尽管新加坡几乎所有食品都进口，且食品价格高昂，但每年产生超过80万吨食品废弃物。所谓“产生”，指我们浪费已购买、烹饪并通过昂贵贸易路线空运半个地球的食品。这是昂贵的讽刺。环境与水资源部在制定采购更多食品策略的同时，必须减少浪费。部长能否介绍减少食品浪费的计划和努力？
粮食安全
黄世轩议员（森巴旺选区）：主席，我想就新加坡食品故事2的四大支柱中的三项发表意见，分别是多元化进口、全球合作伙伴关系和本地生产。我也想声明我的利益关系，因为我本人采用植物性饮食。
首先，我想澄清多元化进口和全球合作伙伴关系在实际操作中有何不同。多元化进口是将采购风险分散到多个国家和供应商。全球合作伙伴关系则更深入，涉及结构化协议、上游合作以及在供应中断时可启动的机制。
部长举例说明了与越南和泰国签署的稻米谅解备忘录（MOU），以及文莱-新加坡农业科技食品区，这些将加强贸易保障，超越普通商业交易。这让我想起我在新加坡企业发展局担任初级官员时参与的新加坡-中国吉林食品区项目。我们成功将吉林稻米引入新加坡，但要在其他食品类别复制类似的结构化供应流程则更为复杂。
这引发两个实际问题。第一，我们如何评估一个全球合作伙伴关系是否超越单一产品类别？如果合作伙伴关系保障了一种主食商品的供应，它是否能有效支持蛋白质、新鲜农产品或加工食品等其他食品类型的多元化努力？
第二，什么样的标准能将某项安排定义为“全球合作伙伴关系”？澄清这一点有助于我们了解合作关系是针对特定商品的安排，还是能够支持多个领域食品韧性的更广泛战略平台。
关于本地生产，我们主要关注鸡蛋和鱼类。这些依然重要，但我也鼓励继续加强我们在植物性和替代蛋白领域的地位。全球对该领域的投资有所放缓，采用程度不均。然而，从食品韧性角度看，植物性和替代蛋白仍具战略意义。受控环境发酵和新型蛋白生产占用土地有限，且受气候变化影响较小。这使我们即使在土地有限的情况下，也能从“本地种植”迈向“本地生产”。
食品韧性不仅关乎数量上的充足，还关乎营养稳定性，尤其是蛋白质供应的可靠性。如果我们能澄清多元化进口与全球合作伙伴关系如何协同，并持续投资未来蛋白能力，就能增强即时供应韧性和长期战略深度。
新加坡食品故事——我们是否走在正确轨道上？
李慧莹女士：主席，去年11月，我们遗憾地注意到“30%自给率”目标——即到2030年生产30%的营养需求——已被调整为2035年的新目标。我们理解这一决定背后的务实考量。我们的本地农食产业面临严峻挑战。2024年，我们见证了高科技农场关闭，四分之一的海上养殖场退出行业。数据令人警醒：2024年，我们仅生产了8%的纤维和26%的蛋白质。
然而，虽然时间表有所调整，紧迫性未减。全球环境中供应链日益脆弱。在此背景下，加强本地食品能力不仅是经济目标，更是生存的战略必需。
我有三个问题想请教部长。
第一，除了对新多租户设施的可行性研究外，部委将如何进一步支持现有本地食品生产者，即使面对高成本也能成功？是否有计划帮助他们获得更好的融资或技术，确保生存和扩展能力？
第二，我了解到目前有11个机构需批准商业养殖计划。部长是否考虑投入资源与食品生产者沟通，帮助他们满足监管指南和要求？是否会审查是否有可能简化监管流程？
第三，实现食品安全目标需要“全员参与”的方法。通过划拨更多社区空间为社区农地，提升公众对社区耕作的兴趣，我们不仅能补充食品供应，还能强化“我们优先”的新加坡精神，直接让公民参与食品安全的管理。
新加坡食品故事背后的故事
蔡银洲议员（碧山-大巴窑选区）：1940年代前，潮州人经营的笼屋占近400个海上养殖场的近一半。如今，这一传统正处于十字路口。仅2023至2024年间，我们失去了四分之一的开放式笼养鱼场，现存74个。作为潮州人，以及我们所有作为乌中岛（即新加坡本岛）居民的人，海洋生活方式与国家息息相关。
最近，我与人民行动党议员李慧莹一同访问了海上开放笼养鱼农。农户表示，虽然能达到生产目标，但难以与更廉价的进口产品竞争。
为确保养殖场繁荣，并作为我提交议会质询的后续，我有三点建议。
晚上7点45分
第一，支持公众可访问性。我注意到由于生物安全考虑，参观海上养殖场“不被鼓励”。政府是否会提供技术和财政支持，帮助养殖场达到这些标准？有管理的公众访问是教育和品牌建设的重要工具。
第二，追踪水产养殖人才管道。水产养殖课程设于工艺教育学院、淡马锡理工学院、共和理工学院、南洋理工学院和詹姆斯库克大学。但新加坡食品局（SFA）目前未收集相关高等院校或继续教育培训项目中本地海上养殖工人的比例或年龄数据。我请求部委重新考虑。没有这些数据，我们无法解决该行业的长期人力韧性问题。
第三，部委是否会与新加坡旅游局和国家文物局合作，将海上养殖场纳入遗产和旅游产品？讲述我们食品背后的故事能推动本地需求，这是食品安全所必需的。
主席，如果海上养殖是我们韧性的支柱，我们必须保护其可行性。十年后，开放式笼养鱼业会是我们食品故事的一部分，还是仅仅成为历史？
新加坡小贩和食品故事2
傅哲祥议员（丹戎巴葛选区）：主席，我声明我在供应链行业工作。
2025年11月，傅巧慧部长公布了新加坡食品故事2。她强调贸易与工业部将通过多元化进口、本地生产、储备和全球合作四大支柱提升新加坡食品安全。我对这一更新策略感到鼓舞，务实且坚决。然而，我认为要成功实施这些策略，我们需要在食品和供应链物流领域建立强大联盟。请允许我说明。
首先，我们必须超越多元化进口，做到多元化进口与物流整合。我们多元化食品来源的努力，成败取决于我们将食品安全运抵新加坡的能力。对于许多产品来说，如果冷链断裂，新的供应来源毫无用处。因此，我建议政府支持建立共享数字平台，使进口商和物流供应商能够实时追踪“源头污染风险”，并制定替代供应和运输路径。
第二，超越本地生产，做到通过共享基础设施实现本地生产的成本效益。为了使高科技农场具备商业可行性，我们需要共享即插即用的物流枢纽，整合冷藏和首末端配送。这将帮助降低生产者的配送成本，使本地产品更具价格竞争力。
第三，超越储备，做到创新储备。我们对稻米和蛋白质的战略储备依赖供应链合作伙伴，因为他们是储备的守护者。我们应鼓励食品生产者、零售商和供应链伙伴合作，开发创新技术和策略，使食品保质期更长，同时减少浪费。
最后，超越发展全球合作伙伴关系，转变新加坡为高价值食品的区域分销中心。我们应利用世界级港口基础设施，邀请食品企业将新加坡作为再出口基地，在此加工、通过新加坡食品局标准认证，并向区域重新分销。这将赋予我们战略杠杆和对全球食品流的早期可视性，其他国家所不具备。
主席，随着我们发展食品故事2，我认为是时候打造我们的小贩故事了。先生，虽然不像公共住房和公共交通那样被强调，我们公共小贩中心的许多食品都得到政府支持，通过租金政策和生产力补助。政府也大量投资建设和升级小贩中心，且未向社会意识企业小贩中心（SEHC）经营者或摊位业主收回成本。
我们的先锋小贩目前仍占熟食摊位约30%，他们享受约300新元的重补贴租金。这是政府与人民之间的社会契约，我们的小贩中心和文化已成为国家身份的核心部分。
先生，议会在2024年广泛讨论了新加坡的小贩文化。那时我未在议会，但我想提出两点，我相信这将影响未来十年我们的小贩文化。
第一，虽然先锋小贩仍占熟食摊位30%，但随着年龄增长，这一比例将在未来十年急剧下降，将出现断崖效应。他们许多已由家人、亲戚或助理协助经营。
2024年，时任贸易与工业部高级国务部长许宝琨表示，先锋小贩的摊位可转让给直系亲属，租金仍维持约300新元。我想澄清，这一低租金是否适用于亲属的后续续约，还是后续每三年续约将按市场租金计收，市场租金中位数约为1,250新元？如果是后者，则意味着未来十年小贩摊位的平均租金将上升，因为30%的摊位占比较大，且从300新元跳升至1,250新元，涨幅超过四倍。
先生，我选区丹戎巴葛-中峇鲁有几位先锋小贩。他们的子女现年五六十岁，曾向我反映想接手父母摊位，但担心租金大幅上涨。
我理解期望这些摊位租金永远维持300新元不现实，但我希望贸易与工业部考虑将租金上涨拉长周期。例如，不是三年内从300新元骤升至1,250新元，而是拉长至12年。
第二，人力资源。自2025年起，国家环境局允许小贩雇用长期探访准证（LTVP）及LTVP+持有者。主席，我赞赏扩大摊位助理人选范围。但我认为，只要摊主是新加坡公民，每天亲自到摊位经营熟悉的小贩食品，助理的国籍并不那么重要。
因此，为进一步支持长期服务的小贩管理人力需求和成本，我敦促贸易与工业部重新考虑允许工作准证持有者担任摊位助理，条件是摊位已经营超过10年。归根结底，新加坡人最看重的是小贩中心的食品，而非摊位助理的身份。
提升小贩食品的可负担性
蔡庆伟议员（盛港选区）：主席，今年早些时候，政府宣布组屋咖啡店参与经济餐计划不再强制，理由是顾客和小贩的反馈。我认为这是正确方向。在运营成本上升和长工时压力下，提供经济餐侵蚀了小贩本已微薄的利润，他们常常不得不牺牲经济餐的营养价值以弥补利润减少。
尽管如此，社会意识企业小贩中心的摊主仍需提供此类实惠餐点，因为中心运营者必须确保有负担得起的餐食选择。去年还披露，武吉坎贝拉的摊主曾被合同约束，需自费为低收入居民提供免费餐食，虽然后来取消。此外，先锋一代、独立建国一代及部分社区健康援助计划（CHAS）持卡人的折扣由小贩自行承担。
虽然许多新加坡人感受到小贩食品价格上涨的压力，但让小贩承担提供实惠餐食的直接责任是不公平的。正如我在2024年小贩动议演讲中所述，政府可根据CHAS卡类型为低收入新加坡人提供折扣。持卡人在参与餐厅出示CHAS卡即可享受折扣，折扣额度根据卡片颜色（蓝、橙、绿）而定。
重要的是，这些折扣成本不应由小贩承担，而应由政府承担。与其补贴高净值人士（他们与低收入家庭一样均获得社区发展理事会（CDC）代金券），不如将补贴更精准地投向最需要的人群。
如此一来，确保营养均衡且价格合理餐食的责任将在利益相关者间更公平分担。我在2025年议会质询中也提及此点。通过加强政府支持保障实惠餐食，同时保障小贩生计，年轻人可进入并振兴小贩业态，同时应对越来越多资深小贩退休的趋势。
贸易与工业部作为害虫防治的整合者
何伟达议员：主席，我想谈谈宜居环境的一个非常实际方面——害虫防治，这也是贸易与工业部和国家环境局应发挥更强整合者角色的领域。许多居民每天遭遇害虫问题，感到沮丧，包括老鼠和蟑螂，若不加控制，这些问题会成为公共卫生隐患。我相信在座许多人都收到过居民相关反馈。
因此，我建议贸易与工业部和国家环境局作为国家害虫防治整合者发挥更大作用，以营造更宜居环境。明确一点，我并非主张这些机构接管市镇理事会的市政职责，而是利用作为国家机构的优势，提升基本服务标准。
第一，贸易与工业部和国家环境局可制定更明确的统一服务标准。例如，面对高风险热点，预期响应时间应是多少？什么是充分的后续处理？可接受的复发率是多少？明确这些标准后，我们更容易追究供应商责任，向居民保证无论选区如何，都能享受同等基本服务水平。
第二，有理由整合需求并提供共享能力，因为部分市镇理事会可能缺乏维持专业团队或应对突发爆发的弹性能力。国家整合者可提供专业团队、更佳诊断和快速动员能力，尤其当多个社区受影响时。
第三，这可通过全政府需求整合合同实现，设定统一关键绩效指标和成果。若持续测量这些成果，我们能比较绩效，学习有效做法，并全面提升标准。
举例说明需求整合的价值：据我调研，一市镇理事会可能为捕捉一只鸡支付200新元，另一市镇理事会为类似效果支付400新元。通过需求整合，我们能降低成本差异，实现类似成果。
最后，面向公众方面，针对食品经营者和居民的害虫防治公告应保持最新、多语种且实用。应持续针对垃圾管理、食品处理和环境清洁进行教育和执法。
总之，若贸易与工业部和国家环境局能协调标准、整合需求并强化共享能力，我们能减少社区间差异，为新加坡居民提供更一致的公共卫生和宜居环境基础水平。
共享空间，共担责任
李慧莹女士：主席，2026年预算提高烟草税以劝阻吸烟，但真正受害者是被困家中的人——儿童和非吸烟家庭成员，他们暴露于二手烟中。
这个话题在本院已经被多次提及。但我们必须继续关注这个无声的杀手。根据《2023年全球疾病负担》研究，至少有一名新加坡人死于二手烟，且数字还在上升。
是时候超越征税措施了。是时候果断行动，保护新加坡人免受二手烟的危害。是时候立法禁止在窗户和阳台吸烟。明确一点，这不是要监管家庭内部发生的事情，而是要阻止烟雾飘入邻居的单元，伤害我们的年轻人和老人。需要更强的执法权力和更智能的监控。目前针对二手烟投诉以及高层乱扔垃圾的措施效果如何？
我们现在面临技术僵局。抓住违法者当场违法行为很困难，现有摄像头受限于角度和家庭隐私限制。因此，顽固的违法者抱有免疫感，许多投诉因缺乏证据而无果而终。
贸易与工业部已经在使用人工智能视频分析技术进行老鼠监控和排水检查。是时候将这一战略优势应用于保护居民的健康、安全和生活环境。
贸易与工业部是否会委托开展一个基于人工智能执法摄像头的沙盒试点？该试点利用智能摄像头，首先可以自动且即时遮蔽单元内部和居民面部以确保隐私；其次，严格检测特定动作，特别是物体被抛掷的轨迹或在窗户界面点燃香烟的动作。
通过此举，我们可以克服当前阻碍执法的隐私障碍。
更多指定钓鱼点
蔡银洲先生：您知道新加坡拥有8000公里的活水道，17个水库，但只有15个指定钓鱼点吗？
我们感叹孩子们沉迷屏幕，因此必须做得更多。为了鼓励他们花时间在户外，我在大巴窑遇到的儿童和青少年通过钓鱼来缓解压力并亲近自然。然而，由于附近没有指定钓鱼点，他们不得不在未经授权且通常更危险的区域钓鱼，这些区域人流量大、水流急或存在危险的物理障碍。非法钓鱼的青少年常常遭遇公众负面情绪或过度激烈的反应。
晚上8点
如果我们希望青少年成为环境的守护者和户外安全的维护者，我们必须首先允许他们合法且安全地接触自然。我请求相关部委考虑在我们的水库和水道内开放更多指定钓鱼点，提供便利且合法的通道，摒弃旧有文化——谢谢。
主席：李鸿昌先生。
支持海外倡议
李鸿昌先生（裕廊东-武吉巴督）：主席，新加坡有30%的土地几乎处于海平面以上，气候变化威胁着我们的家园。除了加强基础设施建设，我们还必须认识到公民社会和青少年在气候韧性中的重要作用。
像新加坡海洋守护者协会这样的团体，领导青少年开展海洋保护行动，从生物多样性保护、海洋清理到减少塑料使用，并让社区参与科学活动。他们的工作加强了海岸防御，建立了区域管理意识，并提高了公众意识。我呼吁通过共同资助、拨款和指导提供结构化支持，使年轻倡导者能够积极参与国家规划。
海岸保护不仅仅是工程问题；这是全民族的努力。让我们赋能青少年，共同守护我们的海洋和未来。
（中文发言）：[请参阅本地语言发言。]让我们赋能青少年，共同守护我们的海洋和未来。
英文原文
SPRS Hansard 原始记录 · 抓取日期：2026-05-02
The Chairman : Head L, Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE). Ms Poh Li San.
7.00 pm
National Adaptation Plan
Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West) : Mr Chairman, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Estimates be reduced by $100".
The climate is a two-faced problem, global commons but local impact. In the latter, Singapore stands out in the world for being prepared to commit public funds today, to ensure the homes and jobs of tomorrow.
Let me start off with Terminal 5 (T5) at Changi Airport as an example. T5 will be built on land topped up to 5.5 metres above main sea level, higher than the rest of Singapore. Meanwhile off Pulau Tekong, we have reclaimed a space the size of two Toa Payoh towns for military use. The Tekong Polder is 1.2 metres below sea level and protected by six metres seawalls.
And to remind ourselves what long-term planning means, the "Long Island" project was first mooted in the 1991 concept plan 30 years ago as an integrated plan to protect the East Coast with an integrated mix of projects to ensure coastal flood protection, rainwater harvesting and land supply.
These are all novel ideas, underwritten by billions in Government commitment to protect our low-lying areas and ensure Singapore's continued place in a changing climatic world.
I must stress that I support our spending on these long-term problems because the time to build and prepare for the future, is now and today. The problems are real and urgent even as they are long-term and appear distant and far away.
As human beings, we are all subject to the bias of long-term discounting. How can people care about long-term plans if we do not have enough for our daily lives now? Spending on the National Adaptation Plan can feel disconnected with our needs today. Put bluntly, many of us simply do not care about these plans.
Hence, I would like to ask the Ministry how it intends to engage the public on the need for such adaptation infrastructure? How will the National Adaptation Plan build climate literacy and awareness within the community to foster a culture of climate resilience?
Second, we implement these policies based on best current knowledge. I have also said that the Government has adopted novel solutions. Here, I would like to ask on the progress on Climate Science. What partnerships has the Ministry established with international climate research institutions to strengthen Singapore's climate science capabilities? How is Singapore enhancing its climate monitoring and forecasting capabilities to better understand local climate impacts and inform adaptation decisions?
Climate change will impact us in many ways. How about underground spaces? If rainfall becomes too heavy, will our current drainage, crest and pump system still suffice to keep out rainwater and floodwater out? Do we expect building owners to do more to reinforce their infrastructure, like the case of Coastal Protection?
Mr Chairman, I have spoken about the need to spend today for tomorrow and to convince Singaporeans that this is as a matter of national and fiscal responsibility. I have also asked for a holistic consideration of how science and evidence is brought to our service. Together, these will help Singaporeans like me, who want to support climate spending, to understand how and why we are doing so, and the careful consideration that goes into spending every dollar, of the billions in public monies committed for the future.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Island Systems Resilience
Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio) : Sir, as an island nation, Singapore's safety and sustainability is closely linked to the health of our coastal, water and marine ecosystems. Climate change places going pressure on these interconnected systems. Rising sea levels affect coastal protection. More intense rainfall test flood resilience and warming seas affect aquaculture stability.
I would like to seek the Ministry's views in two main areas. First, on flood resilience.
We have observed increased in average annual rainfall and the frequency of heavy rainfall with annual rainfall rising about 83 millimetre per decade since 1980. Whilst Singapore has progressively upgraded drainage infrastructure, it is neither practical nor cost effective to size drains for the most extreme storm events only. As rainfall intensities are projected to increase, some residual flood risks may need to be managed at community level during extreme events. Could the Ministry share how Singapore strengthening community flood resilience, including public preparedness and local response capabilities in flood-prone areas? Will the Ministry consider a map perhaps, or improved alert system?
Secondly, on climate resilience, agricultural and food resilience. As of 2023, Singapore had 98 sea-based and 33 land-based seafood farms. Most farms are concentrated in near shore coastal waters, where sea space and environmental conditions impact farm viability. Could the Ministry provide an update on recent trends in the number of aquacultural farms, including any consolidation or exit and what the trend might indicate about the sustainability of the sector? These coastal farms are highly sensitive to surrounding marine conditions and have experienced environmental stresses. Could the Ministry share how aquacultural farms are transitioning towards climate resilience systems, such as hybrid or re-circulating agricultural technologies as well as the take-up rates of support schemes, the extent of transition across the sector and any key challenges in scaling the adoption of such technologies.
Beyond productivity improvements, sustained demand for local produce matters. To boost local demand amidst import competition, I understand the Ministry work with industry partners to establish an industry level supply and demand aggregator. Could the Ministry provide an assessment of its effectiveness in strengthening demand for local produce and plans to further support market development? How else can the public be engaged?
Climate pressures across our water do not operate in silos. As risks intensify, adaptation will become more complex and costly. If our island city state is to be resilient, we must strengthen the integrity of our systems from infrastructure to industry to individuals.
Climate Adaptation Capability Building
Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nee Soon) : Chairman, climate change poses a serious and undeniable challenge for Singapore, carrying profound consequences for both present and future generations. As stewards of today's resources, we bear the responsibility of ensuring a sustainable and habitable environment for future Singaporeans.
Singapore's Third Climate Change Study (V3) provides climate projections for Singapore and the region, attempting to cover the present till the end of the century. Even as we take a science-based approach to climate adaptation, informed by climate projections, there will surely be some margin of error and a range of uncertainty for these projections. Among other factors, they are contingent on the world's carbon emissions. Given the uneven pace of emissions reductions globally, we could indeed face adverse climate impacts earlier than projected, and with more devastating and extreme effects than initially anticipated.
Therefore, we must continue to adapt. A key part to this adaptation is to build our capabilities today to be climate resilient, in order to safeguard our country and our people.
First, how is Singapore enhancing its climate monitoring and forecasting capabilities so that we can have more accurate projections, as well as anticipate the effects of climate change, such as extreme weather events before they occur? How would MSE harness the latest technologies to support our efforts? Has the Ministry explored leveraging on artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance Singapore's climate resilience initiatives to sharpen our projections?
I imagine that the work of climate monitoring and forecasting depends on a multitude of factors that can have many permutations and combinations, with potentially extreme consequences if we do not read the forecast right. I imagine that the time is ripe for AI to be included in such work and there is much to be harnessed in this regard.
Second, the immediate impacts of climate change are indeed already felt by the public and these have implications on further outcomes, such as health and well-being. For example, undertaking prolonged outdoor activities, such as outdoor work or school physical education lessons when there is high heat stress, could increase the risk of heat-related injuries. As we enhance our weather forecasting capabilities, how can we better equip the public with timely information to make proactive and informed decisions on their daily activities, in an effort that protect their well-being against the backdrop of extreme weather changes?
Heat Resilience
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang) : Chairman, heat resilience is not just an environmental issue. It is a public health, productivity and infrastructure issue.
Agencies have already taken practical steps. The Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) Workplace Safety and Health Council has strengthened heat stress management guidelines for outdoor workers. The Ministry of National Development (MND) has piloted cool coatings and incorporated urban design measures to enhance airflow and reduce heat build-up in estates. MSE is advancing long-term adaptation through measures such as coastal protection.
These are important efforts. But rising temperatures cut across Ministries, sectors and systems. We should now move towards a more coordinated framework.
In the battery industry, every additional degree of operating temperature reduces performance and lifespan. Similarly, higher ambient heat can accelerate infrastructure wear, increase cooling loads and reduce workers' productivity across sectors.
I suggest three areas for a coordinated approach.
First, anchor a cross-Ministry heat resilience framework that aligns workplace heat stress guidelines with building design standards, estate planning and industrial operations. MOM, MSE, MND and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) should move in step, so that worker safety, urban design and economic productivity are treated as part of the same system. Second, scale passive cooling as a baseline strategy. Third, strengthen digital heat monitoring.
To operationalise this, we can pilot a heat-resilient industrial precinct or campus. Within one defined zone, we integrate heat stress guidelines, passive cooling design, airflow planning and sensor-based monitoring. Importantly, we measure not just workers' productivity outcomes, but also infrastructure durability, maintenance frequency and energy consumption. This allows us to quantify the economic impact of adaptation, not just the environmental benefits.
Coastal protection safeguards our long-term national assets and heat resilience will safeguard both our people and our economic systems. A coordinated, cross-Ministry approach will ensure we adapt systematically and not in silos.
Heat Resilience for Vulnerable Groups
Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok) : Chairman, I would like to speak on heat resilience, with a specific focus on vulnerable groups. While the weather for the past two months has been generally cool and pleasant, we must acknowledge that for the majority of the year and for the foreseeable future, heat will continue to be an issue.
For many Singaporeans, hot weather will continue to be our daily lived reality, but the burden is not evenly shared. Children, seniors, residents living in smaller flats with less ventilation or households without air-conditioning will feel the impact of high heat temperatures more severely. Outdoor workers, including Singaporeans and migrant workers in construction, landscaping and also food delivery roles, will face prolonged exposure to heat and rain as part of their livelihoods.
In building a heat resilient Singapore for our vulnerable groups, I have three suggestions.
First, on public guidance. The good news is this. We already have heat stress advisories and that is a good foundation. But the guidance can be made more accessible and more targeted.
The question we must ask ourselves is this – who is vulnerable to heat, and do they know about such advisories? Knowing is one thing. Are they able to digest the information? This is especially important for children and also the elderly, who may experience health impacts at lower heat thresholds than healthy adults. In particular, we must also ask ourselves whether these advisories are age-appropriate and are they easy to act on? For example, if a child or a senior were to look and to read them, would they be able to say, "Oh, I know when to do what and what I should do?"
Accessibility and awareness also depend on language and channels of communication. We should translate key guidance into major languages and given the target profile that I mentioned, it should not be too wordy or technical. Such information should be placed in places where it is visible, for example, our schools, community touchpoints, common areas, lift lobbies and hawker centres.
Given that our young, seniors and also migrant workers spend time on social media, we should also disseminate relevant information on such channels. This is especially important because in the period of April to July, because that is where heat is the most intense in Singapore.
Second, allow me to move to household vulnerability. Heat resilience plans should clearly prioritise those with few coping options. So, one practical way is to prioritise micro-interventions to reduce heat exposure in places that people actually spend time. This could include sheltered and ventilated linkways, cooler waiting areas near common facilities and heat mitigation for common corridors and lift lobbies where residents gather.
7.15 pm
I would also ask MSE and the National Environment Agency (NEA) to consider working together with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Town Council to identify what I call “hotspot blocks” using simple indicators. For example, blocks with poor cross-ventilation, blocks where there are few or no air-conditioned areas such as Community Centres, libraries or shopping malls within a short walk and implement micro-interventions.
Third, we need better data to target interventions where risk is highest. It would be useful to publish more information on heat exposure and heat-related incidents. In particular, our outdoor workers deserve attention. Many outdoor workers cannot choose to avoid peak heat hours.
If we are able to develop a baseline estimate of outdoor heat exposure across sectors, this would help us to strengthen our support for those who are facing higher heat risks. This could include sector-specific guidelines, more enforcement in construction sites, or practical resources such as having rest areas, hydration access and work-rest protocols that account for real operating conditions.
Heat and Water Resiliency
Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi) : I would like to first declare that I have been an employee for an energy and utilities company that operates industrial wastewater and NEWater assets. Chairman, heat and water shapes our national conversation. One presses upon us daily. The other sustains us silently.
Heat shapes how our children play, how seniors exercise and how workers commute. Water underpins every household, hawker centre, hospital and industry. These are not abstract matters and these are daily realities affecting comfort, health and economic resilience.
The Government has done well through the National Heat Resilience Strategy which manifests in country-wide manuals like the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) Draft Master Plan 2025 to tackle urban heat and mandatory water recycling for water-intensive projects from 2024 to enhance water resiliency. But more can be done and I will first speak on heat resiliency, then water resiliency.
Singapore's mean surface air temperature has risen about 0.25°C per decade between 1948 and 2024, roughly double the rate of global warming. We now face days constantly above 34°C and warmer nights. Heat affects sleep, productivity and long-term health. Children dehydrate faster and regulate body temperature less effectively. Seniors face risks of heat stress, cardiovascular strain and hospitalisation. This is not merely discomfort. It is a liveability issue.
I would like to ask how the Ministry is working with MND, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and other agencies to strengthen the whole-of-Government heat adaptation plan. What novel solutions is the Ministry studying? Is the Government focused on cool pavements, reflective materials and putting data-driven heat mapping for vulnerable estates to good use?
I would like to offer a proposal. First, extend covered walkways from high-density residential or commuter points to transport nodes, working towards a 100% coverage. Second, we should provide fundings to ensure all playgrounds and fitness stations, including existing ones, have overhead canopy shelter using heat safe materials such as tensile fabric membranes. Outdoor play for children and active ageing for seniors can then be an achievable national reality.
If heat is our daily pressure, water is our strategic safeguard and I have a soft spot for any topic related to water, having begun my first full-time job as an industrial wastewater plant engineer and witnessing the opening of the first large-scale NEWater plant in Changi East more than 16 years ago.
My career journey reminds me how innovative we have been as a nation with our water strategy despite limited land and no natural aquifers. Much has been said about the Four National Taps, but may I ask the Ministry to update this House on our latest water strategy, considering climate change? Has dependency among the Four Taps shifted? What proportion of water comes from each source today, compared with 10 years ago?
Also, we often discuss how we obtain water, but less about how much we lose. May I ask what Singapore's recorded water loss rate is over the past two years and how it compares internationally? I have received reports from the Management Corporations Strata Title (MCSTs) I care for about burst pipes, suspected to be linked to nearby national construction projects. What safeguards has the Ministry done to prevent infrastructure damage and reduce non-revenue water loss? Water resiliency is not only about diversifying supply. It is also about protecting every drop that we produce.
Chairman, heat resilience requires upstream design. Water resilience requires upstream planning. Both demand anticipation and coordination. By planning ahead for cooler neighbourhoods and secure water systems, we protect our children, seniors and our future. Singapore has thrived by preparing early. So, let us continue that tradition with clarity and with resolve.
Reliable Long-term Recycling Operations
Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang) : Sir, our recycling rates fell to their lowest point in 2024. As we launched the Beverage Container Return Scheme this year, we have a critical opportunity to harmonise and strengthen our entire recycling infrastructure. The challenges run deeper than contamination alone. While construction and demolition waste achieved 99% recycling rates, household recycling rates tells a different story.
According to NEA's 2024 statistics, only 5% of plastic is recycled and 8% of glass. Much of what enters our blue bins is incinerated or exported rather than truly recycled. We need a multi-faceted approach.
First, leverage Government procurement power to create guarantee demand for recycled materials. Expanding our existing green procurement frameworks to mandate minimum recycled content in construction materials, packaging and office supplies would provide the certainty recycling operators need for investment. This market signal would ripple across the private sector.
Second, I welcome NEA's exploration of extending Extended Producer Responsibility to broader packaging waste, particularly plastics, which constitute a third of our domestic waste. Paired with mandated recycle content requirements, this would address the economic barriers that currently make only 5% plastic recycling viable.
Third, upgrade our blue bin system progressively through pilots in new estates. Introducing organic waste segregation first supported by smart bins with contamination sensors. Singapore's zero waste ambition requires recycling that actually recycles. Our citizens deserve a system with environmental integrity and economic viability.
Collection of Recyclables by Public Waste Collectors
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied) : After years of public education on the importance of recycling, more Singaporean families now make it a point to decontaminate and sort their recyclables before depositing them at the blue recycling bins located near their HDB blocks. However, some practical problems persist for housing estates where the smaller 660-litre recycling bins on wheels are deployed.
Appointed waste collectors already undertake collections three times a week. For the estates where the larger side loading recycling bins are located, collection is scheduled for twice a week. These larger bins fill up quickly, even outside the festive season. This is partly driven by the growth of online shopping and the increased disposal of packaging material from online purchases. When bins overflow and recyclables are left exposed for longer, the prospects for recyclable contamination increases. What were perfectly recyclable items in and around the bin at the point of disposal, can be rendered unrecyclable.
As an ecosystem, such developments can undermine the very recycling behaviour we have worked hard to cultivate. What metrics does NEA use to determine whether appointed public waste collectors should increase collection frequency for the larger bins? While I understand that NEA can mandate additional collections on an ad hoc basis, does the Ministry not agree that more frequent collection must keep pace with improved and more widespread recycling habits among residents?
Moving the Needle for Our Greener Future
Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon) : Mr Chair, over the past months, my residents and fellow Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Members of Parliament (MPs) have taught me that sustainability is not just a policy goal: it is a way of life.
From our Nee Soon Green Fest to our zero-waste initiatives, we see what is possible when people take ownership. Nationally, the upcoming National Adaptation Plan will push this agenda even further. But feedback from the ground is clear: we can and must do better.
Our recycling rates are improving, but yet contamination of blue bins, especially with food waste, remains a persistent problem. Too many recyclables end up as trash. With Semakau Island filling up, every avoidable bag of waste is not just trash. It is a countdown to the day we run out of space. So, upstream waste reduction is critical.
I have the following questions.
First, will the Ministry consider widening the Resource Sustainability Act and the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act's scope to introduce stronger upstream waste reduction obligations and improve data reporting requirements to better support circular outcomes? Are there plans to set mandatory packaging waste reduction targets, rather than relying mainly on recycling rates?
Second, what are the public consultation plans for the National Adaptation Plan and what measurable indicators will assess impact at the community level?
Third, we celebrate businesses that cut emissions for quick wins, but too often, adaptation, the very investments that would shield us from floods, heatwaves and other climate shocks, is ignored. Why? Because the returns are long-term, less visible and harder to measure. How will the private sector be incentivised to invest meaningfully in the adaptation measures?
If we do not rebalance mitigation and adaptation, we risk building a future that looks good on paper but falters under real climate stress.
Overcoming Plastics Recycling Challenges
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang) : Singapore's overall recycling rate remains above 50%, but this figure is stabilised by industrial waste streams that are almost fully recycled. Beyond that headline, the picture weakens quickly. Plastics are now the largest waste stream by volume, yet our plastic recycling rate has fallen significantly from 11% in 2013 to a mere 4.6% in 2024.
It is estimated that the manufacturing of plastics consumes the same amount of fossil fuel as the entire aviation industry, and at the same time used plastics. Used plastics can hold a high economic value if recycled. Why manufacture new plastics and increase our carbon footprint when we can reuse recycled ones? With the climate warming and Semakau expected to be full by 2035, our margin for error is narrow.
This gap between headline performance and material outcomes points to a deeper structural issue. A study by Singapore Environmental Council found that waste managers see it as economically challenging to recycle plastics because there is no local demand for it. They concluded that plastics recycling rates will not change unless the demand for recycled plastic increases. At the same time, Singapore's recycling system is highly exposed to global market conditions.
When demand for recycled materials weakens, when freight costs rise, or when importing countries tighten contamination rules, exporting recyclables become expensive or unavailable. This was most evident following China's national salt policy and similar measures elsewhere. In such conditions, market actors respond rationally by choosing the cheapest available option, which is often incineration.
Incineration reduces landfill volume, but plastics are fossil fuel-based and their combustion releases fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Because these emissions are accounted for as waste disposal, rather than climate impact, poor plastics recovery can be offset rhetorically by energy recovery. The material outcome, however, is the destruction of recyclable plastics and a continued reliance on new manufactured plastics.
This creates a risk that incineration is presented as environmental performance when the outcome is that more fossil fuel may be consumed while sustaining a reality where incentives to improve recycling remain weak.
If we truly want to transit to a circular economy as laid out by the Singapore Green Plan, it is imperative that we build an ecosystem that sustains recycling even when external market conditions deteriorate.
We must continue to find ways to reduce our reliance on incineration when plastics recycling ceases to be commercially viable.
We can consider expanding extended producer responsibility beyond beverage containers to cover all packaging, including e-commerce mailers and food delivery containers, building on mandatory packaging reporting. This would shift costs upstream, improve packaging design and fund the collection and sorting capacity needed for meaningful recycling.
To create demand for recycled plastics, the Government can also mandate that plastic bottles, packaging and goods must contain a minimum percentage of recycled plastics. Such a practice has been mandated by the European Union, as well as the state of California. The Government can also use public procurement as a market anchor. Schools, hospitals and agencies can build demand by only purchasing plastic bins, road barriers, pipes and park furniture made from recycled plastic.
For example, Switzerland's Swiss Plastic Pipe Recycling Initiative is working to establish a take-back and recycling system for plastic pipes used in civil engineering and building construction. There is strong potential for recycled plastics to become a strategic material —
7.30 pm
The Chairman : Ms Hany Soh.
Support Green Sustainable Lifestyle
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee) : Chairman, as we navigate the challenges of climate change, it is imperative that we, as a community, take collective action to build a more resilient and eco-conscious Singapore. Our efforts today are directed towards securing a livable environment for our future generations.
Before Budget 2026, as part of our regular People's Action Party (PAP) Climate Action Group outreach engagements, my GPC Parliamentary colleagues, Ms Poh Li San, Mr David Hoe and I jointly organised an event based on the theme "Sustainability Living: Creating Zero Waste and a Circular Economy". It was a robust discussion session with over 30 climate activists, community leaders and stakeholders who came together to discover existing measures as well as new ways for us to foster sustainability in our daily lives.
From the lively discussions and brainstorming, what we have gleaned is this: to convince Singaporeans to adopt green habits that minimise generation of waste, energy consumption, and water usage, three key pillars must undergird our efforts and policies. One, increasing education; two, improving infrastructure; and three, enhancing incentives.
While sustainability is a global mission, the Singapore way has to be one that is “Made to Measure” and “Measure to Manage," for our unique urban context, with clear metrics to track progress and refine our approaches as we continue on this unceasing sustainability journey. We need targeted and a range of policies that would in aggregate resonate with and manage everyday Singaporeans.
Against this backdrop, I raise several questions for MSE’s response today. First, on the effectiveness of the Disposable Carrier Bag Charge. Introduced in mid-2023 at larger supermarkets, this initiative has already shown promising results, with at least large supermarket operators having reported a reduction in bag usage by up to 80%. This nudge has encouraged many to bring reusable bags, cutting down on plastic waste that clog our landfills and oceans. However, as we approach the three-year anniversary of the Disposable Carrier Bag Charge, I would like to ask the Ministry: what is the latest data on the scheme's overall effectiveness in reducing disposable bag consumption across Singapore? What lessons can we apply to broader waste reduction efforts?
Second, regarding climate vouchers under the Climate Friendly Households Programme. This scheme has been a valuable tool, providing vouchers for energy and water efficient appliances, and it was recently enhanced with an additional $100, bringing the total to $400 per eligible household and extended to private properties until 31 December 2027.
It is heartening to see such incentives making sustainable choices more accessible. Drawing inspiration from innovative local programmes like the Northwest Community Development Council’s (CDC's) Green Homes at Northwest, which rewards residents with up to $500 in e-vouchers for adopting eco-friendly practices such as using climate vouchers for high-efficiency appliances, I propose MSE considers how we can build on this momentum.
Can the Ministry share whether the climate vouchers scheme will continue beyond 2027, or if a nationwide version akin to Green Homes at Northwest, perhaps with tiered rewards for multiple green actions, could be rolled out to amplify incentivisation and education across all districts in Singapore?
Third, the upcoming Beverage Container Return Scheme (BCRS) set to launch on 1 April 2026. This deposit-refund system for plastic and metal beverage containers, managed by BCRS Ltd, promises to boost recycling rates with a 10-cent refund per container returned at over 1,000 reverse vending machines island-wide at launch, aiming to double that within the first year.
By making producers responsible and consumers active participants, it addresses waste at its source while improving recycling infrastructure. To ensure its success, can the Ministry provide more details on how the scheme will be operationalised, including management of unredeemed deposits and strategies to garner widespread support from Singaporeans through education campaigns and accessible return points?
The BCRS may only be as successful with the public’s support. However, as we have heard the views of affected proprietors and feedback from consumers, the greatest challenge that needs to be overcome is in my opinion getting everybody on board.
Finally, as we mark the sixth anniversary of the SG Eco Fund this year, launched in 2020 with $50 million to back community-driven sustainability projects, the fund has empowered numerous initiatives, from small-scale "Sprout" grants now permanently capped at $30,000 to larger endeavours.
This milestone is a testament to ground-up action. Does the Ministry have plans to expand the fund's scope, perhaps by increasing overall funding, introducing new categories for climate adaptation, or partnering with more sectors to spur even greater participation across all segments of society?
In closing, embracing a green sustainable lifestyle is not just about policies – it is about empowering every Singaporean to make a difference. By prioritising education, bolstering infrastructure and enhancing incentives, we can measure our progress and manage our resources wisely.
Food Security, Resilience and Safety
Ms Poh Li San : Mr Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak on this important topic. First, we note that Singapore has shifted from "30 by 30" to Food Story 2. It is no great stretch of reasoning to surmise that this is because the original goal is thought to be out of reach – to fail to reach a target, by itself, is not a great failure. In policy making, as it is in sports, and in life, stretched targets are important.
At the same time, there are two important differences. First, benchmarking. "30% of our food needs by 2030" cannot have been a target based on a simple gimmick of two numbers. It must have been made based on some policy assumptions. Can the Minister tell us what among its initial assumptions failed? These include – first, what lessons are learnt from the failures of businesses in big-scale urban farms and plant proteins? What can MSE do differently now to step up local produce?
Second, the new food targets are different compared to the past in that they are more targeted to specific food types. For example by 2035, for us to produce 20% of our fibre needs and 30% of our proteins. Can the Minister explain how these targets have emerged. For example, are they due to the specifics of Singapore’s land size and our comparative advantages? Again, targets must be set based on specific and objective assumptions, and it would be useful to hear from the Minister what these are.
Last, even as we strive towards these new targets, we must remember that most of our food remains imports. Can I ask the Minister about our food source diversification and global partnerships? Fresh, air-flown food has become increasingly expensive. While those with deep pockets will continue to enjoy a wide variety of fresh foods, the average Singaporean may have to restrict themselves and change their diets. We do not need to ensure that everyone has asparagus and truffles, but we do want to make sure that fresh fish and vegetables are not out of reach for most homes. How would MSE address this issue?
Last, while almost all the food in Singapore is imported and people are complaining about high food cost, Singapore produces more than 800,000 tonnes of food waste every year. When I say “produce”, I mean we waste the food that we have bought, cooked and flown halfway across the world on very expensive trade routes. This is an expensive irony. Even as MSE works out a strategy to procure more food, we must at the same time, waste less. Can the Minister tell us of plans and efforts to reduce food waste?
Food Security
Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang) : Chairman, I would like to speak on three of the four pillars of our Singapore Food Story 2, diversifying imports, global partnerships and growing local. I would also like to declare my interest as someone on a plant-based diet.
First, I would like to seek clarification on how diversifying our imports and global partnerships differ in practice. Diversification spreads sourcing risk across multiple countries and suppliers. Global partnerships appear to go deeper, involving structured agreements, upstream cooperation and mechanisms that can be activated during disruptions.
The Minister has cited examples such as the rice memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with Vietnam and Thailand, and the Brunei-Singapore Agri-Tech Food Zone, which will strengthen trade assurance beyond normal commercial transactions. This reminds me of my days as a junior officer in Enterprise Singapore working on the Singapore-Sino Jilin Food Zone. We successfully brought Jilin rice into Singapore. However, replicating similar structured flows across other food categories proved more complex.
This raises two practical questions. First, how do we assess whether a global partnership extends beyond a single category of products? If a partnership secures supply for one staple commodity, does it meaningfully support diversification efforts across other food types such as protein, fresh produce or processed foods?
Second, what threshold qualifies an arrangement as a “global partnership”? Clarifying this will help us understand whether our partnerships are commodity-specific arrangements, or broader strategic platforms that can support food resilience across multiple segments.
On growing local, we have focused largely on eggs and fish. These remain important. But I would also encourage us to continue strengthening our position in plant-based and alternative proteins. Global investment in this sector has slowed and adoption has been uneven. However, from a food resilience perspective, plant-based and alternative proteins remain strategically relevant. Controlled-environment fermentation and novel protein production require limited land and are less exposed to climate variability. This allows us to move from grow local to produce local even within our land constraints.
Food resilience is not only about having enough food in terms of quantity. It is also about nutritional stability, particularly the reliability of our protein supply. If we clarify how diversification and global partnerships work together, and continue to invest in future protein capability, we can strengthen both immediate supply resilience and long-term strategic depth.
Singapore Food Story - Are We on Track?
Ms Lee Hui Ying : Mr Chair, in November last year, it is with a measure of regret that we note the "30 by 30" goal – producing 30% of our nutritional needs by 2030 – has been replaced with revised targets for 2035. We understand the pragmatism behind this decision. Our local agri-food sector has faced severe headwinds. We have seen high-tech farms shut down and a quarter of our sea-based farms exit the industry in 2024 due to rising costs. The statistics are sobering: in 2024, we produced only 8% of our fibre and 26% of our protein.
However, while the timeline has shifted, the urgency has not. We face a global environment where supply chains are increasingly vulnerable to disruption. In this context, strengthening our local food capabilities is not just an economic ambition – it is a strategic necessity for our survival.
I have three questions to the Minister.
First, beyond the feasibility study on the new multi-tenant facility, how will the Ministry further support our existing local food producers to succeed even in spite of high costs? Are there plans to help them access better financing or technology to ensure both survival and ability to scale?
Second, I understand 11 agencies are currently required to approve a plan for commercial farming. Will the Minister also consider allocating resources towards engagement of food producers to provide them with support to meet regulatory guidelines and requirements? Will there be a review to identify if it would be possible to streamline regulatory processes?
Third, achieving our food security goals requires an "all-hands-on-deck" approach. By setting aside more community spaces into community plots and growing public interest in community farming, we can not only supplement our food supply but also strengthen our "we first" Singapore spirit, engaging our citizens directly in stewardship of our food security.
The Story behind Singapore Food Story
Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh) : Before 1940s, Teochew-run kelongs accounted for nearly half of almost 400 sea farms. Today, this heritage is at a crossroads. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, we lost a quarter of open cage fish farms and 74 remain. As a Teochew-nang and all of us as residents of Pulau Ujong, or what some call Mainland Singapore, the nautical way of life is close to our nation’s heart.
Recently, I visited open cage fish farmers offshore with fellow PAP MP Valerie Lee. Farmers shared that while they can meet production targets, they struggle to compete with cheaper imports.
To ensure our farms thrive and as follow up to Parliamentary Questions I have filed, I have three suggestions.
7.45 pm
The first, in supporting public accessibility, I note that visits to sea-farms are "not encouraged" due to biosecurity concerns. Will the Government provide technical and financial support to help farms meet these standards? Managed public access is a vital tool for education and brand-building.
Second is tracking the aquaculture talent pipeline. Aquaculture programmes are in ITE, Temasek Polytechnic, Republic Polytechnic, Nanyang Polytechnic and James Cook University (JCU). But Singapore Food Agency (SFA) currently does not collect data on the proportion or age of local sea-farm workers from relevant institutes of higher learning (IHL) or continuing education and training (CET) programmes. I ask the Ministry to reconsider. Without this data, we cannot address the long-term manpower resilience of the sector.
Third, will the Ministry partner with Singapore Tourism Board and National Heritage Board to integrate sea farms into heritage and tourism products? Telling the story behind our food can drive local demand necessary for food security.
Chairman, if sea-based farming is a pillar of our resilience, we must protect its viability. In 10 years, will open-cage fish farming remain part of our food story or merely our history?
Singapore Hawker and Food Story 2
Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar) : Chairman, I declare my interest working in the supply chain sector.
In November 2025, Minister Grace Fu unveiled the Singapore Food Story 2. She highlighted how MSE will enhance Singapore's food security through the four pillars of diversifying imports, growing local, stockpiling and forming global partnerships. I was encouraged by the refreshed strategy. It is hard-nosed and practical. However, I believe for these strategies to be to be successful, we will need to forge a strong alliance between our food and supply chain logistics sectors. Let me explain.
First, we have to go beyond diversified imports to diversified imports with integrated logistics. Our efforts to diversify our food sources will only be as successful as our ability to transport them safely to Singapore. For many products, a new source is useless if the cold chain breaks. Therefore, I suggest that the Government support the set-up of shared digital platforms where importers and logistics providers are able to track "source contamination risks", work out alternative sources and transport pathways to Singapore, in real-time.
Second, going beyond growing local to growing local costs effectively through shared infrastructure. To make our high-tech farms commercially viable, we will need shared plug-and-play logistics hubs that consolidate cold storage and first-mile, last-mile distribution. This will help to bring down distribution cost for producers and make our local produce much more cost competitive.
Third, going beyond stockpiling to innovative stockpiling. Our strategic stockpiling of rice and proteins relies on the ability of the supply chain partners because they are the guardians of the reserves. We should encourage our food producers, retailers and supply chain partners to work together, to develop innovative technologies and strategies that enable our food to last longer, while also generating less waste.
And finally, going beyond developing global partnerships to transforming Singapore into the regional distribution centre for high-value food. We should leverage our world class port-infrastructure and invite food firms to use Singapore as their re-export base, where products are processed, certified by SFA standards and redistributed across the region. This will give us strategic leverage and early-access visibility to global food flows that others lack.
Mr Chair, as we develop Our Food Story 2, I believe it is time to build our hawker story too. Sir, while not highlighted as much as for public housing and public transport, much of our food in our public hawker centres is supported by the Government, through rental policies and productivity grants. The Government also invests significantly to build and upgrade hawker centres, without recovering the costs from Socially-conscious Enterprise Hawker Centres (SEHC) operators or stall owners.
Our Pioneer hawkers, who currently still make up around 30% of cooked food stallholders, pay heavily subsidised rent at about $300 per month. This is part of the social compact between the Government and our people, and our hawker centres and culture have become a central part of our national identity.
Sir, this House debated hawker culture in Singapore extensively in 2024. I was not in the House then. But I would like to raise two points that I believe will influence our hawker culture in the decade to come.
First, while our Pioneer hawkers still make up 30% of cooked food stallholders, this proportion will drop sharply over the next decade as they age. There will be a cliff effect. Many of them are already operating their stalls with the help of their family members, relatives or stall assistants.
In 2024, then-Senior Minister of State for MSE Mr Koh Poh Koon said that the stalls of our pioneer hawkers can be transferred to immediate family members at the same low rent of about $300 per month. I would like to clarify if this low rent will be extended to subsequent renewals by the family member, or if subsequent three-yearly renewals will be subjected to the market rent, for which the median rent is around $1,250? If it is the latter, then it must follow that the average or mean rent of our hawker stalls will go up over the next decade, because 30% of stalls is a substantive proportion, and the jump from $300 to $1,250 is more than a four-fold increase.
Sir, I have several Pioneer hawkers in my constituency of Tanjong Pagar-Tiong Bahru. Their children, who are now also in their 50s to 60s, have come to me. They want to take over the stalls from their parents but are worried of the rental spike when they do so.
I understand that it is not realistic or practical to expect the rents of these stalls to be retained at $300 in perpetuity. However, I would like to seek MSE's consideration to stretch out the rental increase over a much longer period. For example, rather than a sharp jump from $300 to $1,250 in three years, could we stretch it out over 12 years instead?
Second, manpower. Since 2025, NEA has allowed hawkers to hire Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) and LTVP+ holders. Mr Chair, I appreciate the expansion of the pool of stall assistants. However, my view is that as long as the head of the stall is a Singaporean, physically present daily at the stall and producing familiar hawker food, it does not matter as much the nationality of his or her stall assistant.
Hence, to further support our long-serving hawkers manage their manpower needs and costs, I urge MSE to re-consider allowing work permit holders to work as stall assistants in our hawker centres, for stalls that have been operating for more than 10 years. Ultimately, the familiarity that all Singaporeans seek most in our hawker centres is the food, not the stall assistant.
Improving Hawker Food Affordability
Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang) : Chairman, earlier this year, the Government announced that participation in the budget meal programme by HDB coffee shops would no longer be mandatory, citing feedback from patrons and hawkers. I believe this is a step in the right direction, amidst rising operational costs and long working hours, providing budget meals, eat away at the already thin profit margins of our hawkers, who often have to compromise budget meals' nutritional value to compensate for their diminished profit margins.
Nonetheless, stallholders in SEHCs continue to offer such value meals as centre operators are required to ensure the availability of affordable meal options. It was also revealed last year that stallholders at Bukit Canberra were contractually bound to provide free meals for low-income residents at their expense, although this was subsequently scrapped. Further, the discounts offered to Pioneer Generation (PG), Merdeka Generation and certain the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders are absorbed by the hawkers themselves.
Although many Singaporeans feel the pinch of rising hawker food prices, it is unfair for our hawkers to shoulder the direct responsibility for providing affordable meals. As I have shared in my speech on the Hawker Motion in 2024, the Government could provide discounts for lower-income Singaporeans based on their CHAS card type. As it is, cardholders who present their CHAS card at the participating eatery would be able to receive a discount on their food, the quantum of which corresponds to the colour of their CHAS card, whether it is blue, orange or green.
Importantly, the cost of this discount should not be imposed on the hawkers, but on the Government instead. Rather than subsidise high net worth individuals who, like low-income households, all receive the same CDC vouchers, the subsidy will be better directed to those who need it the most.
With this, the responsibility of ensuring the affordability of well-balanced and nutritional meals will be shared in a much more equitable fashion across stakeholders, a point which I have shared in a Parliamentary Question in 2025. By enhancing governmental support to ensure affordable meals, while securing the livelihoods of our hawkers, younger players could come in and rejuvenate the hawker scene, while sparking the trend of a rising number of veteran hawkers calling it quits and retire.
MSE as Aggregator for Pest Control
Mr David Hoe : Chairman, I would like to speak on a very practical aspect of a liveable environment and that is pest control, and this is a case for MSE and NEA to play a stronger role as a national aggregator. Many residents experience pest issues daily and lead to frustration, including things rodents and cockroaches, and if left unchecked, these problems can become a public health. I am sure many of you here have received feedback from our residents in this regard.
So, I want to suggest that MSE and NEA can do more as a national aggregator for pest control so that we can build a more liveable environment. To be clear, I am not advocating for the agencies to take over the municipal responsibilities from Town Councils. But what it means is using the strengths as the national agency to raise baseline standards.
First, MSE and NEA can set clearer common service standards. These would address questions, for example, what should the expected response time be when there is a high-risk hotspot, what constitute an adequate follow-up; and also, what is an acceptable recurrence rate? If we define these standards clearly, it becomes easier for all of us to hold vendors accountable and to assure residents that you get the same basic level of service applied regardless of constituency.
Second, there is a case to pool demand and provide shared capabilities because some Town Councils might not have the ability or scale to be able to maintain specialised teams or a surged capacity when a sudden outbreak happens. So, a national aggregator can allow for specialised teams, better diagnostics and faster mobilisation when multiple estates are affected.
Third, this can be operationalised through a whole-of-Government demand aggregation contracts with standard key performance indicators and outcomes. If we measure these outcomes consistently, we can compare performance, learn what works and raise standards across all board.
A case in point to why a demand aggregation might be useful is a case of catching chickens. From my research, one Town Council may effectively be paying $200 to catch one chicken and another Town Council pays $400 to catch another one chicken for a similar outcome. So, by having a demand aggregation, we can reduce cost variance and achieve similar outcomes.
Finally, the public-facing side as well. Advisories for food operators and residents in relation to pest control should remain current, multilingual and practical. Education and enforcement on waste management, food handling practices and environmental cleanliness. should be targeted and sustained.
In summary, if MSE and NEA can coordinate standards, pool demand and strengthen shared capabilities, we can reduce the unevenness across estates and deliver a more consistent baseline of public health and liveability for residents across Singapore.
Shared Spaces, Shared Responsibility
Ms Lee Hui Ying : Chair, Budget 2026 raises tobacco tax to discourage smoking, but the real victims are those trapped at home – children and non-smoking family members exposed to second-hand smoke.
This topic has been brought up in this House multiple times. But we must continue to place attention on this silent killer. From The Global Burden of Disease 2023 study, at least one person in Singapore dies that is attributed to second-hand smoke and the numbers are climbing.
It is time to move beyond taxation. It is time to act decisively to protect Singaporeans from second-hand smoke. It is time to legislate and ban smoking at windows and balconies. To be clear, it is not to police what happens inside homes, but to stop smoke from drifting into neighbours' units and harming our young and old. There is a need for stronger enforcement powers and smarter surveillance. How effective are current measures in addressing complaints on second-hand smoke and also high-rise littering?
We now face a technological stalemate. Catching offenders in the act is difficult and existing cameras are limited by angles and privacy constraints within homes. As a result, recalcitrant offenders act with a sense of immunity, and many complaints reach a dead end for lack of evidence.
MSE is already using AI video analytics for rat surveillance and drainage inspections. It is time we apply this strategic advantage to protect our residents' health, safety and living environment.
Will MSE commission a sandbox pilot for AI-enabled enforcement cameras? This pilot using smart cameras could first, automatically and instantly mask the interiors of units and the faces of residents to ensure privacy; two, strictly detect specific motions, specifically the trajectory of an object being thrown or the lighting of a cigarette at the window interface.
With this, we can overcome the privacy hurdle that currently prevents enforcement.
More Designated Fishing Spots
Mr Cai Yinzhou : Did you know Singapore has 8,000 kilometres of ABC waterways, 17 reservoirs and yet, only 15 designated fishing spots?
We lament that our children are addicted to screens and thus must do more. To encourage them to spend time outdoors, children and youths I have met in Toa Payoh turn to fishing to manage stress and connect with nature. However, with no designated fishing spots in close proximity, they resort to fishing in unauthorised and often more dangerous areas, areas with high human traffic, fast water currents or precarious physical barriers. Often, youths fishing illegally are met with negative public sentiment or disproportioned aggression.
8.00 pm
If we want our youths to be the stewards of our environment and their outdoor safety, we must first allow access to legal and safe interactions. I ask the Ministry to consider opening more designated fishing spots within our reservoirs and waterways by providing convenient and legal access, move away from culture — Thank you.
The Chairman : Mr Lee Hong Chuang.
Support Initiatives Beyond Shores
Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok) : Chairman, with 30% of Singapore barely above sea level, climate change threatens our home. Beyond enhancing our infrastructure, we must recognise the vital role of civic society and youth in climate resiliency.
Groups like SeaKeepers Society Singapore lead youths-driven marine initiatives from biodiversity conservations and ocean clean-ups to reducing plastic and engaging communities in science. Their work strengthens coastal defence, builds regional stewardship and raises public awareness. I urge structured support through co-funding, grants and mentorship so young advocates can actively contribute to national planning.
Coastal protection is more than engineering; it is a whole of nation effort. Let us empower our youths, together safeguard our seas and our future.
( In Mandarin ) : [ Please refer to Vernacular Speech .] Let us empower our youths, and together safeguard our seas and our future.