Sir, I would like to thank the Members - Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Andy Gan - for speaking up in support of the Bill. I will go through some of the issues raised by Dr Teo Ho Pin first. Firstly, Dr Teo is concerned whether the National Environment Agency (NEA), being an autonomous agency, will adopt a business model that is revenue-driven. I suppose Dr Teo is concerned, firstly, whether this Agency would compete with the industry for business and, secondly, whether this Agency will over-emphasise on revenue generation to keep the Agency going. Sir, here, I want to assure the Member that, firstly, the NEA will be an Agency funded by the Government. In other words, the NEA is not set up to be a self-funding statutory board, but rather a statutory board - to be funded by the Government to offer public services. Secondly, the revenues collected by the NEA, whether it is through fees, fines and so on, NEA will not get to keep the revenue for its own use. This is because every year, NEA will be getting a grant from the Government. So whatever revenue the NEA is going to collect, through fees, fines and so on, will be offset against the grant from the Government. As far as NEA is concerned, it will be operating on an annual budget based on its operating requirements. It is not driven by revenue generation. Dr Teo is concerned whether NEA will compete with the private sector for business. Sir, here, I want to assure the House that, again, it is not the intention of NEA. The staff of NEA, from time to time, will offer consultancy service for overseas projects. For example, we extend technical assistance to the Riau province in Indonesia, under a G to G programme. Basically, we offer consultancy to organisations and projects in the region for the purpose of enhancing regional collaboration. The officers may also be asked to undertake some consultancy services - maybe in places like China. These projects are undertaken in order to, firstly, strengthen our collaboration on a country-to-country basis; and, secondly, to enable our staff at NEA, as part of their professional development, to keep track of some of the development and issues faced in the region. But, at the end of day, I want to assure the House that it is not the intention for NEA to function as a business entity, because it is not set up to be a business entity. It will continue to be a Government-funded statutory board. And the main responsibility, as my MOS has presented, is to ensure that environmental performance in Singapore will continue to be improved, and the foundation for sustainability will continue to be enhanced. Most of these works will be done through the private sector, by the private sector. ENV will set the policy; and the NEA will enforce on the operational aspects; whereas the actual implementation will be done by the private sector. Dr Teo brought up another point regarding the protection granted to employees and officers of the Board. Sir, here, again, I want to emphasise that, as public sector employees, NEA employees, from time to time, are asked by the private sector to provide information regarding certain aspects of our work. For example, waste disposal, clean air, and so on. Based on good faith, from time to time, my officers do share some technical information with the private sector. But how this technical information could be applied to a specific situation is something that the NEA officers should not be expected to take on the responsibility. Take, for example, if someone were to come to NEA and say that if he were to purchase a ultra low sulphur diesel (ULSD) vehicle, would that ULSD vehicle satisfy NEA's emission standard? Based on technical specifications, the NEA officers should be in a position to advise him. They will say, "Yes, if you go by the international standard for ULSD vehicles, you should be able to satisfy the requirement." But what if the ULSD vehicle turns out to be violating our emission standards due to maintenance or operational problems? Firstly, does it mean that NEA officers cannot take enforcement action against that person? Secondly, does it mean that once enforcement action is taken against him, he can take counter action against our officers for giving him wrong information? Sir, at the end of the day, we have to bear in mind that the more we remove this protection of good faith from the NEA officers, the more it is likely that the officers would behave in an even more bureaucratic manner. As my MOS has pointed out, the purpose of the NEA is to strengthen the 3P partnership, meaning that we would very much like to work very closely with the people sector, the public sector and the private sector. In that regard, as we work together based on good faith, it is very important that whatever information and assistance that the officers offer out of good faith to the industry and private sector, should not be taken against them. At the end of the day, it is really for the recipients of the information to make their own technical or business assessment on whether they want to accept the input of the NEA officers. Sir, let me move on to respond to the points raised by Mr Andy Gan. Basically, Mr Andy Gan asked whether nature conservation should come under the NEA. Broadly speaking, from the environmental angle, there are three types of issues. First is the green issue relating to nature conservation, bio-diversity, and so on. The second type will be the brown issue, eg, pollution control, and so on. And the third type will be the blue issue, eg, marine life, marine diversity, and so on. At this moment, all over the world, there is no standard practice on how the government should organise its agencies to address the blue, brown and green issues. Take, for example, in the case of USA, the USEPA is basically an agency that looks after the brown issues. The blue and green issues are looked after by some other agencies. In the case of Germany, for example, one agency takes charge of all three issues - green, brown and blue. In the case of Singapore, ENV, and now NEA, will continue to be responsible for handling the brown issues. In the case of NParks, it will continue to be responsible for the green issues. The Marine Port Authority (MPA) will continue to take charge of the blue issues. This is not without good reasons. Because, in the case of Singapore, marine resources are used mainly for port traffic. As a result, it makes more sense for MPA to regulate the traffic flow in our water, and enforce environmental protection measures at the same time. But, here, I want to point out that any land-based pollution, any activities on land that may lead to pollution in the water, will continue to come under NEA and ENV. There is therefore no gap in our responsibility. In the case of NParks, many of our green issues have to do with land use. Many of the examples mentioned by Mr Andy Gan really are issues between balancing environmental consideration and land use consideration. Up till now, I think the Government has found it most efficient and most effective for NParks to come under the Ministry of National Development, because land use consideration and environmental management consideration can best be balanced within the same Ministry. I also want to emphasise that just because NEA is looking after the brown issues, NParks after the green issues, and MPA after the blue issues, it does not mean that the three agencies will be working in isolation. In fact, the three agencies work very closely together. One good example is the SGP 2012. NParks is an integral part of this whole exercise. By the time the SGP 2012 is formulated and implemented, ENV, NEA, NParks and MPA will collectively take joint responsibility in the overall implementation of SGP 2012. Sir, Mr Andy Gan also asked whether we can do something to enhance the interest of our younger generation in local weather broadcast and so on, so that in time to come, maybe we can even nurture a weather industry. Sir, this is a very interesting idea. I will convey this to MSD. Once it comes under NEA, we will see what can be done and what needs to be done. Mr Andy Gan also asked whether NEA will set very clear policy directions regarding the research direction for clean energy. Sir, the NEA, basically, will pursue management by outcome. The concern of the NEA will be to ensure that the ambient air quality of Singapore will remain within the standard imposed by the World Health Organisation and the USEPA. Research is a means to the end. In other words, NEA, in itself, will not undertake research. Rather, it will pursue the 3P partnership. NEA will encourage research in the technical community. NEA will promote innovation in the industry, and commercialisation in the marketplace so that the results of research can be widespread. Sir, in other words, NEA will be looking at how upstream R&D, midstream innovation, and downstream deployment and commercialisation, can be best synergised without getting too involved directly in any of these areas of work. Last, but not least, Mr Andy Gan suggested that the penalty that we impose should take into consideration the severity of the offences. I fully agree with Mr Andy Gan. When we impose penalty, we will certainly take into consideration the implication and impact on the environment. Sir, I think I have answered most of the points brought up by the Members.