預算辯論 · 2026-03-03 · 屆國會 15
2026環境可持續部供給委員會辯論：AI增強氣候韌性
MSE供給委員會辯論中，議員質詢MSE是否探索利用AI增強新加坡氣候韌性舉措。討論聚焦於利用最新技術預測極端天氣事件，以及AI在提升專案精準度方面的潛力。多名議員關注氣候變化對新加坡的實際影響以及技術應對手段。
關鍵要點
- • 探索AI增強氣候韌性
- • 利用AI預測極端天氣事件
- • 提升氣候專案精準度
積極探索AI在氣候適應中的應用
Pritam Singh和Dennis Tan參與辯論
AI氣候應用進入政策議程
參與人員 (6)
完整譯文（中文）
Hansard 原始記錄 · 2026-05-02
主席：可持續發展與環境部（MSE）L項下。Poh Li San 女士。
晚上7點
國家適應計劃
Poh Li San 女士（Sembawang West）：主席先生，我提議，“將估算表中L項下的總撥款減少100元”。
氣候問題具有雙重性質，既是全球公共問題，又有地方影響。在後者方面，新加坡在全球範圍內因願意今天投入公共資金以保障未來的住房和就業而脫穎而出。
讓我以樟宜機場的第五航站樓（T5）為例。T5將建在填高至高於新加坡其他地區的主海平面5.5米的土地上。與此同時，在Pulau Tekong島附近，我們為軍事用途填海造地，面積相當於兩個大巴窯鎮。Tekong圍墾地低於海平面1.2米，由6米高的海堤保護。
為了提醒我們長期規劃的意義，“長島”專案最早在30年前的1991年概念規劃中提出，作為保護東海岸的綜合計劃，融合多項工程以確保海岸防洪、雨水收集和土地供應。
這些都是新穎的理念，政府承諾投入數十億資金以保護我們的低窪地區，確保新加坡在氣候變化的世界中持續立足。
我必須強調，我支援我們在這些長期問題上的支出，因為建設和為未來做準備的時間就是現在。問題是真實且緊迫的，儘管它們是長期的，看似遙遠。
作為人類，我們都存在長期折現偏差。如果我們現在的日常生活都難以維持，人們又怎會關心長期規劃？國家適應計劃的支出可能與我們當前的需求脫節。坦率地說，許多人根本不關心這些計劃。
因此，我想問部委如何計劃與公眾溝通適應基礎設施的必要性？國家適應計劃將如何在社群內提升氣候素養和意識，培養氣候韌性文化？
其次，我們基於當前最佳知識實施這些政策。我也提到政府採用了新穎的解決方案。在這方面，我想了解氣候科學的進展。部委與哪些國際氣候研究機構建立了合作伙伴關係，以增強新加坡的氣候科學能力？新加坡如何提升氣候監測和預測能力，更好地理解本地氣候影響並指導適應決策？
氣候變化將以多種方式影響我們。地下空間如何？如果降雨過大，我們現有的排水、堤頂和泵站系統是否仍能有效防止雨水和洪水？我們是否期望建築業主在基礎設施加固方面做更多工作，就像海岸保護那樣？
主席先生，我談到了今天為明天花費的必要性，以及說服新加坡人這是國家和財政責任。我也要求全面考慮如何將科學和證據服務於我們。這些將幫助像我這樣的新加坡人理解我們為何如此支出，以及數十億公共資金投入未來時的審慎考量。
【（程式文本）提案提出。（程式文本）】
島嶼系統韌性
Nadia Ahmad Samdin 女士（宏茂橋）：主席，作為一個島國，新加坡的安全和可持續性與我們的海岸、水域和海洋生態系統的健康密切相關。氣候變化對這些相互關聯的系統施加壓力。海平面上升影響海岸保護。更強烈的降雨考驗防洪韌性，海水變暖影響水產養殖穩定性。
我想就兩個主要方面徵詢部委意見。首先，關於防洪韌性。
我們觀察到自1980年以來，年均降雨量和強降雨頻率增加，年降雨量每十年約增加83毫米。雖然新加坡逐步升級排水基礎設施，但僅為極端暴雨事件設計排水系統既不實際也不經濟。隨著降雨強度預計增加，極端事件期間可能需要在社群層面管理剩餘的洪水風險。部委能否分享新加坡如何加強社群防洪韌性，包括公眾準備和洪水易發區的地方響應能力？部委是否考慮製作地圖或改進預警系統？
其次，關於氣候韌性、農業和食品韌性。截至2023年，新加坡擁有98個海基和33個陸基水產養殖場。大多數養殖場集中在近岸海域，海域空間和環境條件影響養殖場的可行性。部委能否提供水產養殖場數量的最新趨勢，包括整合或退出情況，以及這些趨勢對行業可持續性的指示？這些沿海養殖場對周圍海洋環境高度敏感，經歷了環境壓力。部委能否分享水產養殖場如何向氣候韌性系統轉型，如混合或迴圈農業技術，以及支援計劃的採用率、行業轉型程度和推廣此類技術的主要挑戰？
除了提高生產力，持續的本地產品需求也很重要。為提升本地需求以應對進口競爭，我瞭解到部委與行業合作伙伴合作建立了行業級供需聚合平臺。部委能否評估其在增強本地產品需求方面的效果及未來支援市場發展的計劃？公眾還能如何參與？
我們水域的氣候壓力不是孤立存在的。隨著風險加劇，適應將變得更復雜且成本更高。若我們的島國城市國家要具備韌性，必須從基礎設施到產業再到個人，強化系統完整性。
氣候適應能力建設
Syed Harun Alhabsyi 博士（義順）：主席，氣候變化對新加坡構成嚴重且不可否認的挑戰，對當代及未來世代產生深遠影響。作為當代資源的管理者，我們有責任確保未來新加坡人擁有可持續且宜居的環境。
新加坡第三次氣候變化研究（V3）提供了新加坡及區域的氣候預測，涵蓋當前至本世紀末。即使我們採取基於科學的氣候適應方法，依賴氣候預測，預測仍存在誤差和不確定範圍。預測受全球碳排放影響不均的因素制約，我們可能比預測更早遭遇不利氣候影響，且影響更為嚴重和極端。
因此，我們必須持續適應。適應的關鍵部分是今天建設氣候韌效能力，以保障國家和人民。
首先，新加坡如何提升氣候監測和預測能力，以獲得更準確的預測，並提前預見極端天氣等氣候變化影響？MSE將如何利用最新技術支援這些努力？部委是否探索利用人工智慧（AI）增強新加坡氣候韌性舉措，提升預測能力？
我想象氣候監測和預測工作依賴眾多因素，可能有多種組合，若預測錯誤後果可能極端。我認為現在是將AI納入此類工作的時機，潛力巨大。
其次，氣候變化的直接影響公眾已感受到，並對健康和福祉等後續結果產生影響。例如，在高熱應激時進行戶外活動，如戶外工作或學校體育課，可能增加熱相關傷害風險。隨著天氣預報能力提升，我們如何更好地為公眾提供及時資訊，幫助其主動且明智地調整日常活動，以保護健康免受極端天氣變化影響？
熱韌性
Ng Shi Xuan 先生（Sembawang）：主席，熱韌性不僅是環境問題，更是公共健康、生產力和基礎設施問題。
相關機構已採取實際措施。人力部（MOM）工作場所安全與健康理事會加強了戶外工人的熱應激管理指南。國土發展部（MND）試點冷塗層並納入城市設計措施以增強通風，減少社群熱積累。MSE通過海岸保護等措施推進長期適應。
這些努力重要，但氣溫上升跨越多個部委、行業和系統。我們應邁向更協調的框架。
在電池行業，每升高一度的執行溫度都會降低效能和壽命。同樣，更高的環境熱度會加速基礎設施磨損，增加冷卻負荷，降低各行業工人生產力。
我建議三個協調方向。
第一，建立跨部委熱韌性框架，將工作場所熱應激指南與建築設計標準、社群規劃和工業運營對齊。MOM、MSE、MND和貿易及工業部（MTI）應協同推進，使工人安全、城市設計和經濟生產力視為同一系統。第二，將被動降溫作為基礎策略推廣。第三，加強數字化熱監測。
為實現此目標，我們可試點熱韌性工業園區或園區。在一個明確區域內整合熱應激指南、被動降溫設計、通風規劃和感測器監測。重要的是，我們不僅衡量工人生產力，還評估基礎設施耐久性、維護頻率和能耗。這使我們能量化適應的經濟影響，而非僅環境效益。
海岸保護保障國家長期資產，熱韌性保障人民和經濟系統。跨部委協調方法確保系統性適應，而非孤立行動。
弱勢群體的熱韌性
David Hoe 先生（裕廊東-武吉巴督）：主席，我想談談熱韌性，特別關注弱勢群體。過去兩個月天氣總體涼爽宜人，但我們必須承認，全年大部分時間及可預見未來，炎熱仍是問題。
對許多新加坡人來說，炎熱天氣是日常現實，但負擔不均。兒童、老人、居住在通風較差小型組屋或無空調家庭的居民更易受高溫影響。戶外工人，包括新加坡人和外籍勞工，從事建築、園林和送餐工作，長期暴露於熱和雨中。
在為弱勢群體建設熱韌性新加坡方面，我有三點建議。
第一，關於公眾指導。好訊息是我們已有熱應激預警，這是良好基礎。但指導可更易懂、更有針對性。
我們必須問自己：誰是熱易感群體？他們知道這些預警嗎？知道是一回事，能理解資訊又是另一回事。尤其是兒童和老人，他們在較低熱閾值下可能出現健康影響。我們還應問，這些預警是否適齡且易於執行？例如，兒童或老人閱讀後，能否明白何時做何事？
可及性和意識還取決於語言和傳播渠道。我們應將關鍵指導翻譯成主要語言，且針對目標群體，內容不宜冗長或技術化。資訊應放置在顯眼處，如學校、社群接觸點、公共區域、電梯廳和熟食中心。
鑑於年輕人、老人及外籍勞工常用社交媒體，我們也應通過這些渠道傳播相關資訊。尤其是4月至7月期間，新加坡熱度最強。
第二，談家庭脆弱性。熱韌性計劃應優先考慮應對能力有限者。一個實用方法是優先在居民實際活動場所實施微型干預，如有遮蔽且通風的連廊、公共設施附近的涼爽候車區，以及居民聚集的公共走廊和電梯廳的降溫措施。
我還建議MSE和國家環境局（NEA）與建屋發展局（HDB）及市鎮理事會合作，利用簡單指標識別所謂“熱點組屋”，例如通風差、附近無空調場所（社群中心、圖書館或商場）且步行距離內缺乏此類設施的組屋，並實施微型干預。
第三，我們需要更好資料以針對高風險區域實施干預。釋出更多關於熱暴露和熱相關事件的資訊將有助。特別是戶外工人值得關注，他們無法避免高溫時段。
若能建立各行業戶外熱暴露基線估計，將有助加強對高熱風險群體的支援，包括制定行業特定指南、加強建築工地執法，或提供實際資源，如休息區、補水設施和基於實際工作條件的工作休息協議。
熱與水韌性
Valerie Lee 女士（巴西立-樟宜）：我先宣告，我曾在一家能源和公用事業公司工作，該公司運營工業廢水和新生水資產。主席，熱與水塑造我們的國家話語。一個每天施壓於我們，另一個默默支撐我們。
熱影響孩子玩耍、老人鍛鍊和工人通勤。水支撐每個家庭、熟食中心、醫院和產業。這些非抽象問題，是影響舒適度、健康和經濟韌性的日常現實。
政府通過國家熱韌性戰略做得很好，體現在全國手冊如城市重建局（URA）2025年草案總體規劃，針對城市熱島問題，以及自2024年起對高耗水專案實施強制水回用以增強水韌性。但仍有提升空間，我先談熱韌性，再談水韌性。
新加坡地表平均氣溫自1948年至2024年每十年上升約0.25°C，約為全球變暖速度的兩倍。我們現面臨持續超過34°C的日子和更暖的夜晚。熱影響睡眠、生產力和長期健康。兒童脫水更快，體溫調節能力較差。老人面臨熱應激、心血管壓力和住院風險。這不僅是舒適度問題，更是宜居性問題。
我想問部委如何與國土發展部（MND）、交通部（MOT）及其他機構合作，加強全政府熱適應計劃？部委正在研究哪些新穎方案？政府是否關注冷鋪裝、反光材料及利用資料驅動的熱力圖支援弱勢社群？
我想提出一項建議。第一，從高密度住宅或通勤點延伸有蓋人行道至交通樞紐，爭取實現100%覆蓋。第二，應提供資金確保所有遊樂場和健身站（包括現有設施）配備使用安全耐熱材料如張拉膜的頂棚。這樣，兒童戶外遊戲和老人積極老齡化將成為可實現的國家現實。
如果說熱是我們的日常壓力，水則是戰略保障。我對水相關話題有特別興趣，因我第一份全職工作是工業廢水廠工程師，見證了16年前樟宜東首個大型新生水廠的啟用。
我的職業經歷提醒我，儘管土地有限且無天然含水層，我們作為國家在水戰略上極具創新。關於四大國家水源，已有許多討論，但我想請部委向本院更新最新水戰略，考慮氣候變化因素？四大水源依賴是否發生變化？目前各水源佔比與十年前相比如何？
此外，我們經常討論如何獲得水資源，卻較少談及我們損失了多少水。請問新加坡過去兩年的記錄水損率是多少？與國際水平相比如何？我所關心的管理共管公寓（MCST）曾報告過爆管事件，懷疑與附近的國家建設專案有關。部委採取了哪些保障措施以防止基礎設施損壞並減少非收益水損失？水資源韌性不僅僅是多元化供應，還包括保護我們生產的每一滴水。
主席，抗熱韌性需要上游設計，水資源韌性需要上游規劃，兩者都要求預見性和協調性。通過提前規劃更涼爽的社群和安全的水系統，我們保護我們的孩子、長者和未來。新加坡因早做準備而繁榮發展。讓我們以清晰和決心繼續這一傳統。
可靠的長期回收運營
阿卜杜勒·穆海敏·阿卜杜勒·馬利克議員（盛港）：主席，2024年我們的回收率降至最低點。今年我們啟動了飲料容器回收計劃，這是一個關鍵機會，可以協調並強化我們的整體回收基礎設施。挑戰不僅僅是汙染問題。雖然建築和拆除廢料的回收率達到99%，但家庭回收率卻呈現不同的情況。
根據國家環境局（NEA）2024年的統計，塑膠回收率僅為5%，玻璃為8%。許多投入藍色回收桶的物品實際上被焚燒或出口，而非真正回收。我們需要多方面的策略。
首先，利用政府採購力量，創造對再生材料的保證需求。擴大現有綠色採購框架，強制建築材料、包裝和辦公用品中最低再生含量，為回收運營商提供投資所需的確定性。這一市場訊號將波及私營部門。
其次，我歡迎國家環境局探索將生產者延伸責任（EPR）擴大至更廣泛的包裝廢棄物，特別是塑膠，佔我們家庭廢棄物的三分之一。配合強制回收含量要求，將解決當前僅5%塑膠回收可行的經濟障礙。
第三，通過在新建住宅區試點，逐步升級我們的藍色回收桶系統。首先引入有機廢棄物分類，配備帶汙染感測器的智慧回收桶。新加坡的零廢棄目標需要真正回收的回收系統。我們的市民應享有環境誠信和經濟可行的系統。
公共廢物收集者回收物品的收集
普里塔姆·辛格議員（亞歷山大）：經過多年的公眾教育，越來越多的新加坡家庭在將回收物投放到組屋附近的藍色回收桶前，會進行去汙染和分類。然而，對於部署較小的660升帶輪迴收桶的住宅區，仍存在一些實際問題。
指定的廢物收集者每週已進行三次收集。對於配備較大側裝回收桶的住宅區，收集安排為每週兩次。這些較大回收桶即使在非節日期間也很快裝滿。這部分是由網購增長和網購包裝廢棄物增加驅動的。當回收桶溢位，回收物暴露時間延長，回收物汙染的可能性增加。原本在投放點完全可回收的物品，可能變得不可回收。
作為一個生態系統，這種發展可能破壞我們辛苦培養的回收行為。國家環境局使用哪些指標來決定是否應增加較大回收桶的收集頻率？我理解國家環境局可臨時要求增加收集，但部委是否同意，收集頻率必須跟上居民改進和普及的回收習慣？
推動更綠色的未來
李慧穎議員（義順）：主席，過去幾個月，我的居民和政府議會委員會（GPC）議員同事教會我，持續性不僅是政策目標，更是一種生活方式。
從義順綠色節到零廢棄倡議，我們看到當人們承擔責任時的可能性。全國即將推出的國家適應計劃將進一步推動這一議程。但來自基層的反饋很明確：我們可以且必須做得更好。
我們的回收率在提升，但藍色回收桶汙染，尤其是食物廢棄物汙染，仍是持續問題。太多可回收物最終變成垃圾。隨著實馬高島填埋場即將飽和，每一袋可避免的廢棄物不僅是垃圾，更是我們用盡空間的倒計時。因此，上游廢棄物減少至關重要。
我有以下問題。
第一，部委是否考慮擴大《資源可持續法》和《好撒瑪利亞人食物捐贈法》的範圍，引入更強的上游廢棄物減少義務，並改善資料包告要求，以更好支援迴圈經濟成果？是否有計劃設定強制包裝廢棄物減少目標，而非主要依賴回收率？
第二，國家適應計劃的公眾諮詢計劃如何？將採用哪些可衡量指標評估社群層面的影響？
第三，我們讚揚企業減排的快速成果，但適應投資——即保護我們免受洪水、熱浪和其他氣候衝擊的投資——常被忽視。為何？因為回報長期、較不顯著且難以衡量。如何激勵私營部門有意義地投資適應措施？
如果不平衡減緩與適應，我們可能建造一個紙面上美好但在真實氣候壓力下脆弱的未來。
克服塑膠回收挑戰
丹尼斯·陳立豐議員（後港）：新加坡整體回收率保持在50%以上，但這一數字主要由幾乎完全回收的工業廢棄物支撐。除此之外，情況迅速惡化。塑膠現為最大體積廢棄物，但塑膠回收率從2013年的11%大幅下降至2024年的僅4.6%。
據估計，塑膠製造消耗的化石燃料與整個航空業相當，同時使用過的塑膠如果回收，具有高經濟價值。為何製造新塑膠增加碳足跡，而不重複利用回收塑膠？隨著氣候變暖和實馬高預計2035年填滿，我們的容錯空間極小。
這一表面表現與實際結果的差距反映了更深層的結構性問題。新加坡環境理事會研究發現，廢物管理者認為回收塑膠經濟上具有挑戰性，因為本地需求不足。他們得出結論，除非回收塑膠需求增加，否則塑膠回收率不會改變。同時，新加坡回收系統高度依賴全球市場條件。
當回收材料需求減弱、運費上漲或進口國收緊汙染標準時，出口回收物變得昂貴或不可行。中國國家鹽政策及其他類似措施後尤為明顯。在此情況下，市場參與者理性選擇最便宜的方案，通常是焚燒。
焚燒減少填埋體積，但塑膠基於化石燃料，燃燒釋放化石碳進入大氣。因這些排放被計為廢棄物處理而非氣候影響，回收不佳可通過能源回收在言辭上抵消。但實際結果是可回收塑膠被銷燬，且繼續依賴新制造塑膠。
這帶來風險，即焚燒被視為環保表現，實則可能消耗更多化石燃料，同時維持回收激勵薄弱的現實。
若真想實現《新加坡綠色計劃》提出的迴圈經濟轉型，必須建立一個即使外部市場條件惡化也能維持回收的生態系統。
當塑膠回收商業不可行時，我們必須繼續尋找減少對焚燒依賴的方法。
我們可考慮將生產者延伸責任從飲料容器擴充套件至所有包裝，包括電子商務郵寄袋和食品外賣容器，基於強制包裝報告。這將成本上移，改善包裝設計，並資助必要的收集和分揀能力，實現有效回收。
為創造再生塑膠需求，政府也可強制塑膠瓶、包裝和商品含有最低比例的再生塑膠。歐盟和加州已實施此類規定。政府還可利用公共採購作為市場支點。學校、醫院和機構可通過僅採購由再生塑膠製成的塑膠桶、路障、管道和公園傢俱來創造需求。
例如，瑞士的瑞士塑膠管回收倡議正致力於建立土木工程和建築用塑膠管的回收系統。再生塑膠有望成為戰略材料——
晚上7點30分
主席：許慧欣女士。
支援綠色可持續生活方式
許慧欣議員（馬西嶺-裕廊西）：主席，面對氣候變化挑戰，我們作為社群必須共同努力，建設更具韌性和環保意識的新加坡。我們今天的努力旨在為未來世代保障宜居環境。
在2026年預算前，作為人民行動黨（PAP）氣候行動小組的常規外展活動一部分，我與GPC議員同事寶麗珊女士、何大衛先生共同舉辦了主題為“可持續生活：創造零廢棄和迴圈經濟”的活動。超過30名氣候活動家、社群領袖和利益相關者參與了熱烈討論，探索現有措施及新方法，促進日常生活中的可持續發展。
通過討論和頭腦風暴，我們得出結論：要說服新加坡人養成減少廢棄物、能源和水消耗的綠色習慣，必須有三大支柱支撐我們的努力和政策。第一，加強教育；第二，改善基礎設施；第三，增強激勵。
雖然可持續發展是全球使命，但新加坡方式必須“量身定製”和“測量管理”，適應我們獨特的城市環境，設定明確指標跟蹤進展並不斷最佳化方法。我們需要有針對性且多樣的政策，整體上能引起普通新加坡人的共鳴並加以管理。
基於此，我提出幾個問題，請環境與水資源部回應。首先，關於一次性塑膠袋收費的成效。該措施於2023年中在大型超市推行，已顯示良好效果，至少大型超市報告塑膠袋使用減少達80%。這一引導促使許多人攜帶可重複使用袋，減少堵塞填埋場和海洋的塑膠廢棄物。然而，隨著一次性塑膠袋收費即將滿三年，我想問部委：該計劃在全新加坡減少一次性塑膠袋消費的最新資料如何？我們能從中吸取哪些經驗應用於更廣泛的廢棄物減少？
第二，關於氣候友好家庭計劃下的氣候券。該計劃為節能和節水電器提供代金券，最近增加了100元，總額達400元，並延長至2027年12月31日適用於私人住宅。
看到此類激勵措施使可持續選擇更易獲得，令人欣慰。借鑑西北社群發展理事會（CDC）“西北綠色家園”等創新本地專案，獎勵居民採用環保做法（如使用氣候券購買高效電器）最高可獲500元電子券，我建議環境與水資源部考慮如何藉此勢頭。
部委能否分享氣候券計劃是否會延續至2027年後，或是否有計劃推出類似“西北綠色家園”的全國版本，或設立多層次獎勵以鼓勵多項綠色行動，擴大激勵和教育覆蓋全新加坡各區？
第三，即將於2026年4月1日啟動的飲料容器回收計劃（BCRS）。該押金退還系統涵蓋塑膠和金屬飲料容器，由BCRS有限公司管理，啟動時將在全島1000多個逆向自動售貨機提供每個容器10分的退款，目標在第一年內翻倍。
通過讓生產者承擔責任，消費者積極參與，該計劃從源頭解決廢棄物問題，同時改善回收基礎設施。為確保成功，部委能否提供更多關於計劃運營細節的資訊，包括未兌換押金的管理，以及通過教育活動和便捷回收點爭取新加坡人廣泛支援的策略？
BCRS的成功或許取決於公眾支援。我們已聽取受影響業主和消費者的意見，最大挑戰在我看來是讓所有人參與。
最後，2024年是新加坡生態基金（SG Eco Fund）成立六週年。該基金於2020年啟動，資金為5000萬元，支援社群驅動的可持續專案，從小規模“萌芽”資助（現永久上限3萬元）到更大型專案。
這一里程碑彰顯了自下而上的行動。部委是否有計劃擴大基金範圍，或增加整體資金，引入氣候適應新類別，或與更多部門合作，激發社會各階層更廣泛參與？
總結，擁抱綠色可持續生活方式不僅關乎政策，更關乎賦能每位新加坡人發揮影響。通過優先教育、加強基礎設施和提升激勵，我們能衡量進展，明智管理資源。
糧食安全、韌性與安全
寶麗珊議員：主席，感謝允許我就此重要議題發言。首先，我們注意到新加坡已從“30%自給”轉向“食品故事2”。推測這是因為原目標被認為難以實現——未達目標本身並非重大失敗。政策制定如同體育和生活，設定挑戰性目標很重要。
同時，有兩點重要區別。第一，基準設定。“2030年滿足30%食品需求”不可能是簡單數字遊戲，必基於政策假設。部長能否說明哪些初始假設未達預期？包括——首先，從大型城市農場和植物蛋白企業失敗中學到了什麼？環境與水資源部現在能做什麼不同以提升本地生產？
第二，新食品目標更具體，針對特定食品型別。例如，到2035年，生產20%的纖維需求和30%的蛋白質需求。部長能否解釋這些目標如何形成？是否基於新加坡土地面積和比較優勢？目標必須基於具體客觀假設，聽聽部長說明將很有價值。
最後，儘管我們努力實現新目標，但大部分食品仍依賴進口。請問部長關於食品來源多元化和全球合作的策略？空運新鮮食品成本日益高昂。富裕者仍能享用多樣新鮮食品，但普通新加坡人可能需限制飲食。我們不必確保人人都能吃到蘆筍和松露，但希望大多數家庭能負擔得起新鮮魚類和蔬菜。環境與水資源部如何應對這一問題？
最後，儘管新加坡幾乎所有食品都進口，且食品價格高昂，但每年產生超過80萬噸食品廢棄物。所謂“產生”，指我們浪費已購買、烹飪並通過昂貴貿易路線空運半個地球的食品。這是昂貴的諷刺。環境與水資源部在制定採購更多食品策略的同時，必須減少浪費。部長能否介紹減少食品浪費的計劃和努力？
糧食安全
黃世軒議員（森巴旺選區）：主席，我想就新加坡食品故事2的四大支柱中的三項發表意見，分別是多元化進口、全球合作伙伴關係和本地生產。我也想宣告我的利益關係，因為我本人採用植物性飲食。
首先，我想澄清多元化進口和全球合作伙伴關係在實際操作中有何不同。多元化進口是將採購風險分散到多個國家和供應商。全球合作伙伴關係則更深入，涉及結構化協議、上游合作以及在供應中斷時可啟動的機制。
部長舉例說明了與越南和泰國簽署的稻米諒解備忘錄（MOU），以及汶萊-新加坡農業科技食品區，這些將加強貿易保障，超越普通商業交易。這讓我想起我在新加坡企業發展局擔任初級官員時參與的新加坡-中國吉林食品區專案。我們成功將吉林稻米引入新加坡，但要在其他食品類別複製類似的結構化供應流程則更為複雜。
這引發兩個實際問題。第一，我們如何評估一個全球合作伙伴關係是否超越單一產品類別？如果合作伙伴關係保障了一種主食商品的供應，它是否能有效支援蛋白質、新鮮農產品或加工食品等其他食品型別的多元化努力？
第二，什麼樣的標準能將某項安排定義為“全球合作伙伴關係”？澄清這一點有助於我們瞭解合作關係是針對特定商品的安排，還是能夠支援多個領域食品韌性的更廣泛戰略平臺。
關於本地生產，我們主要關注雞蛋和魚類。這些依然重要，但我也鼓勵繼續加強我們在植物性和替代蛋白領域的地位。全球對該領域的投資有所放緩，採用程度不均。然而，從食品韌性角度看，植物性和替代蛋白仍具戰略意義。受控環境發酵和新型蛋白生產佔用土地有限，且受氣候變化影響較小。這使我們即使在土地有限的情況下，也能從“本地種植”邁向“本地生產”。
食品韌性不僅關乎數量上的充足，還關乎營養穩定性，尤其是蛋白質供應的可靠性。如果我們能澄清多元化進口與全球合作伙伴關係如何協同，並持續投資未來蛋白能力，就能增強即時供應韌性和長期戰略深度。
新加坡食品故事——我們是否走在正確軌道上？
李慧瑩女士：主席，去年11月，我們遺憾地注意到“30%自給率”目標——即到2030年生產30%的營養需求——已被調整為2035年的新目標。我們理解這一決定背後的務實考量。我們的本地農食產業面臨嚴峻挑戰。2024年，我們見證了高科技農場關閉，四分之一的海上養殖場退出行業。資料令人警醒：2024年，我們僅生產了8%的纖維和26%的蛋白質。
然而，雖然時間表有所調整，緊迫性未減。全球環境中供應鏈日益脆弱。在此背景下，加強本地食品能力不僅是經濟目標，更是生存的戰略必需。
我有三個問題想請教部長。
第一，除了對新多租戶設施的可行性研究外，部委將如何進一步支援現有本地食品生產者，即使面對高成本也能成功？是否有計劃幫助他們獲得更好的融資或技術，確保生存和擴充套件能力？
第二，我瞭解到目前有11個機構需批准商業養殖計劃。部長是否考慮投入資源與食品生產者溝通，幫助他們滿足監管指南和要求？是否會審查是否有可能簡化監管流程？
第三，實現食品安全目標需要“全員參與”的方法。通過劃撥更多社群空間為社群農地，提升公眾對社群耕作的興趣，我們不僅能補充食品供應，還能強化“我們優先”的新加坡精神，直接讓公民參與食品安全的管理。
新加坡食品故事背後的故事
蔡銀洲議員（碧山-大巴窯選區）：1940年代前，潮州人經營的籠屋佔近400個海上養殖場的近一半。如今，這一傳統正處於十字路口。僅2023至2024年間，我們失去了四分之一的開放式籠養魚場，現存74個。作為潮州人，以及我們所有作為烏中島（即新加坡本島）居民的人，海洋生活方式與國家息息相關。
最近，我與人民行動黨議員李慧瑩一同訪問了海上開放籠養魚農。農戶表示，雖然能達到生產目標，但難以與更廉價的進口產品競爭。
為確保養殖場繁榮，並作為我提交議會質詢的後續，我有三點建議。
晚上7點45分
第一，支援公眾可訪問性。我注意到由於生物安全考慮，參觀海上養殖場“不被鼓勵”。政府是否會提供技術和財政支援，幫助養殖場達到這些標準？有管理的公眾訪問是教育和品牌建設的重要工具。
第二，追蹤水產養殖人才管道。水產養殖課程設於工藝教育學院、淡馬錫理工學院、共和理工學院、南洋理工學院和詹姆斯庫克大學。但新加坡食品局（SFA）目前未收集相關高等院校或繼續教育培訓專案中本地海上養殖工人的比例或年齡資料。我請求部委重新考慮。沒有這些資料，我們無法解決該行業的長期人力韌性問題。
第三，部委是否會與新加坡旅遊局和國家文物局合作，將海上養殖場納入遺產和旅遊產品？講述我們食品背後的故事能推動本地需求，這是食品安全所必需的。
主席，如果海上養殖是我們韌性的支柱，我們必須保護其可行性。十年後，開放式籠養魚業會是我們食品故事的一部分，還是僅僅成為歷史？
新加坡小販和食品故事2
傅哲祥議員（丹戎巴葛選區）：主席，我宣告我在供應鏈行業工作。
2025年11月，傅巧慧部長公佈了新加坡食品故事2。她強調貿易與工業部將通過多元化進口、本地生產、儲備和全球合作四大支柱提升新加坡食品安全。我對這一更新策略感到鼓舞，務實且堅決。然而，我認為要成功實施這些策略，我們需要在食品和供應鏈物流領域建立強大聯盟。請允許我說明。
首先，我們必須超越多元化進口，做到多元化進口與物流整合。我們多元化食品來源的努力，成敗取決於我們將食品安全運抵新加坡的能力。對於許多產品來說，如果冷鏈斷裂，新的供應來源毫無用處。因此，我建議政府支援建立共享數字平臺，使進口商和物流供應商能夠即時追蹤“源頭汙染風險”，並制定替代供應和運輸路徑。
第二，超越本地生產，做到通過共享基礎設施實現本地生產的成本效益。為了使高科技農場具備商業可行性，我們需要共享即插即用的物流樞紐，整合冷藏和首末端配送。這將幫助降低生產者的配送成本，使本地產品更具價格競爭力。
第三，超越儲備，做到創新儲備。我們對稻米和蛋白質的戰略儲備依賴供應鏈合作伙伴，因為他們是儲備的守護者。我們應鼓勵食品生產者、零售商和供應鏈夥伴合作，開發創新技術和策略，使食品保質期更長，同時減少浪費。
最後，超越發展全球合作伙伴關係，轉變新加坡為高價值食品的區域分銷中心。我們應利用世界級港口基礎設施，邀請食品企業將新加坡作為再出口基地，在此加工、通過新加坡食品局標準認證，並向區域重新分銷。這將賦予我們戰略槓桿和對全球食品流的早期可視性，其他國家所不具備。
主席，隨著我們發展食品故事2，我認為是時候打造我們的小販故事了。先生，雖然不像公共住房和公共交通那樣被強調，我們公共小販中心的許多食品都得到政府支援，通過租金政策和生產力補助。政府也大量投資建設和升級小販中心，且未向社會意識企業小販中心（SEHC）經營者或攤位業主收回成本。
我們的先鋒小販目前仍佔熟食攤位約30%，他們享受約300新元的重補貼租金。這是政府與人民之間的社會契約，我們的小販中心和文化已成為國家身份的核心部分。
先生，議會在2024年廣泛討論了新加坡的小販文化。那時我未在議會，但我想提出兩點，我相信這將影響未來十年我們的小販文化。
第一，雖然先鋒小販仍佔熟食攤位30%，但隨著年齡增長，這一比例將在未來十年急劇下降，將出現斷崖效應。他們許多已由家人、親戚或助理協助經營。
2024年，時任貿易與工業部高階國務部長許寶琨表示，先鋒小販的攤位可轉讓給直系親屬，租金仍維持約300新元。我想澄清，這一低租金是否適用於親屬的後續續約，還是後續每三年續約將按市場租金計收，市場租金中位數約為1,250新元？如果是後者，則意味著未來十年小販攤位的平均租金將上升，因為30%的攤位佔比較大，且從300新元跳升至1,250新元，漲幅超過四倍。
先生，我選區丹戎巴葛-中峇魯有幾位先鋒小販。他們的子女現年五六十歲，曾向我反映想接手父母攤位，但擔心租金大幅上漲。
我理解期望這些攤位租金永遠維持300新元不現實，但我希望貿易與工業部考慮將租金上漲拉長週期。例如，不是三年內從300新元驟升至1,250新元，而是拉長至12年。
第二，人力資源。自2025年起，國家環境局允許小販僱用長期探訪準證（LTVP）及LTVP+持有者。主席，我讚賞擴大攤位助理人選範圍。但我認為，只要攤主是新加坡公民，每天親自到攤位經營熟悉的小販食品，助理的國籍並不那麼重要。
因此，為進一步支援長期服務的小販管理人力需求和成本，我敦促貿易與工業部重新考慮允許工作準證持有者擔任攤位助理，條件是攤位已經營超過10年。歸根結底，新加坡人最看重的是小販中心的食品，而非攤位助理的身份。
提升小販食品的可負擔性
蔡慶偉議員（盛港選區）：主席，今年早些時候，政府宣佈組屋咖啡店參與經濟餐計劃不再強制，理由是顧客和小販的反饋。我認為這是正確方向。在運營成本上升和長工時壓力下，提供經濟餐侵蝕了小販本已微薄的利潤，他們常常不得不犧牲經濟餐的營養價值以彌補利潤減少。
儘管如此，社會意識企業小販中心的攤主仍需提供此類實惠餐點，因為中心運營者必須確保有負擔得起的餐食選擇。去年還披露，武吉坎貝拉的攤主曾被合同約束，需自費為低收入居民提供免費餐食，雖然後來取消。此外，先鋒一代、獨立建國一代及部分社群健康援助計劃（CHAS）持卡人的折扣由小販自行承擔。
雖然許多新加坡人感受到小販食品價格上漲的壓力，但讓小販承擔提供實惠餐食的直接責任是不公平的。正如我在2024年小販動議演講中所述，政府可根據CHAS卡型別為低收入新加坡人提供折扣。持卡人在參與餐廳出示CHAS卡即可享受折扣，折扣額度根據卡片顏色（藍、橙、綠）而定。
重要的是，這些折扣成本不應由小販承擔，而應由政府承擔。與其補貼高淨值人士（他們與低收入家庭一樣均獲得社群發展理事會（CDC）代金券），不如將補貼更精準地投向最需要的人群。
如此一來，確保營養均衡且價格合理餐食的責任將在利益相關者間更公平分擔。我在2025年議會質詢中也提及此點。通過加強政府支援保障實惠餐食，同時保障小販生計，年輕人可進入並振興小販業態，同時應對越來越多資深小販退休的趨勢。
貿易與工業部作為害蟲防治的整合者
何偉達議員：主席，我想談談宜居環境的一個非常實際方面——害蟲防治，這也是貿易與工業部和國家環境局應發揮更強整合者角色的領域。許多居民每天遭遇害蟲問題，感到沮喪，包括老鼠和蟑螂，若不加控制，這些問題會成為公共衛生隱患。我相信在座許多人都收到過居民相關反饋。
因此，我建議貿易與工業部和國家環境局作為國家害蟲防治整合者發揮更大作用，以營造更宜居環境。明確一點，我並非主張這些機構接管市鎮理事會的市政職責，而是利用作為國家機構的優勢，提升基本服務標準。
第一，貿易與工業部和國家環境局可制定更明確的統一服務標準。例如，面對高風險熱點，預期響應時間應是多少？什麼是充分的後續處理？可接受的複發率是多少？明確這些標準後，我們更容易追究供應商責任，向居民保證無論選區如何，都能享受同等基本服務水平。
第二，有理由整合需求並提供共享能力，因為部分市鎮理事會可能缺乏維持專業團隊或應對突發爆發的彈效能力。國家整合者可提供專業團隊、更佳診斷和快速動員能力，尤其當多個社群受影響時。
第三，這可通過全政府需求整合合同實現，設定統一關鍵績效指標和成果。若持續測量這些成果，我們能比較績效，學習有效做法，並全面提升標準。
舉例說明需求整合的價值：據我調研，一市鎮理事會可能為捕捉一隻雞支付200新元，另一市鎮理事會為類似效果支付400新元。通過需求整合，我們能降低成本差異，實現類似成果。
最後，面向公眾方面，針對食品經營者和居民的害蟲防治公告應保持最新、多語種且實用。應持續針對垃圾管理、食品處理和環境清潔進行教育和執法。
總之，若貿易與工業部和國家環境局能協調標準、整合需求並強化共享能力，我們能減少社群間差異，為新加坡居民提供更一致的公共衛生和宜居環境基礎水平。
共享空間，共擔責任
李慧瑩女士：主席，2026年預算提高菸草稅以勸阻吸菸，但真正受害者是被困家中的人——兒童和非吸菸家庭成員，他們暴露於二手煙中。
這個話題在本院已經被多次提及。但我們必須繼續關注這個無聲的殺手。根據《2023年全球疾病負擔》研究，至少有一名新加坡人死於二手菸，且數字還在上升。
是時候超越徵稅措施了。是時候果斷行動，保護新加坡人免受二手菸的危害。是時候立法禁止在窗戶和陽臺吸菸。明確一點，這不是要監管家庭內部發生的事情，而是要阻止煙霧飄入鄰居的單元，傷害我們的年輕人和老人。需要更強的執法權力和更智慧的監控。目前針對二手菸投訴以及高層亂扔垃圾的措施效果如何？
我們現在面臨技術僵局。抓住違法者當場違法行為很困難，現有攝像頭受限於角度和家庭隱私限制。因此，頑固的違法者抱有免疫感，許多投訴因缺乏證據而無果而終。
貿易與工業部已經在使用人工智慧影片分析技術進行老鼠監控和排水檢查。是時候將這一戰略優勢應用於保護居民的健康、安全和生活環境。
貿易與工業部是否會委託開展一個基於人工智慧執法攝像頭的沙盒試點？該試點利用智慧攝像頭，首先可以自動且即時遮蔽單元內部和居民面部以確保隱私；其次，嚴格檢測特定動作，特別是物體被拋擲的軌跡或在窗戶介面點燃香菸的動作。
通過此舉，我們可以克服當前阻礙執法的隱私障礙。
更多指定釣魚點
蔡銀洲先生：您知道新加坡擁有8000公里的活水道，17個水庫，但只有15個指定釣魚點嗎？
我們感嘆孩子們沉迷螢幕，因此必須做得更多。為了鼓勵他們花時間在戶外，我在大巴窯遇到的兒童和青少年通過釣魚來緩解壓力並親近自然。然而，由於附近沒有指定釣魚點，他們不得不在未經授權且通常更危險的區域釣魚，這些區域人流量大、水流急或存在危險的物理障礙。非法釣魚的青少年常常遭遇公眾負面情緒或過度激烈的反應。
晚上8點
如果我們希望青少年成為環境的守護者和戶外安全的維護者，我們必須首先允許他們合法且安全地接觸自然。我請求相關部委考慮在我們的水庫和水道內開放更多指定釣魚點，提供便利且合法的通道，摒棄舊有文化——謝謝。
主席：李鴻昌先生。
支援海外倡議
李鴻昌先生（裕廊東-武吉巴督）：主席，新加坡有30%的土地幾乎處於海平面以上，氣候變化威脅著我們的家園。除了加強基礎設施建設，我們還必須認識到公民社會和青少年在氣候韌性中的重要作用。
像新加坡海洋守護者協會這樣的團體，領導青少年開展海洋保護行動，從生物多樣性保護、海洋清理到減少塑膠使用，並讓社群參與科學活動。他們的工作加強了海岸防禦，建立了區域管理意識，並提高了公眾意識。我呼籲通過共同資助、撥款和指導提供結構化支援，使年輕倡導者能夠積極參與國家規劃。
海岸保護不僅僅是工程問題；這是全民族的努力。讓我們賦能青少年，共同守護我們的海洋和未來。
（中文發言）：[請參閱本地語言發言。]讓我們賦能青少年，共同守護我們的海洋和未來。
英文原文
SPRS Hansard · Fetched: 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.