MSE Committee of Supply 2026 — AI for Climate Resilience

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.