Hansard, Wednesday, 7 August 2024

1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the impact of the escalating tensions in the Middle East arising from intensified fighting along Lebanon’s southern border and Hezbollah’s increasing use of reconnaissance drones over northern Israel, for Singapore.

2 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how is Singapore, together with the international community, playing its part to ensure Israel abides by international law as it wages war against Hamas in Rafah to rescue the hostages.

Mr Speaker, my response will cover the question raised by Member Mr Christopher de Souza in today's Order Paper. I will also address the question for written answer by Member Ms Nadia Samdin in today's Order Paper, as well as questions raised by Members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, which were filed for subsequent Sittings, but since it is on the same issue, I thought I would address all these questions together.

And including Question No 2 for oral answer in today's Order Paper?

Yes, that is right.

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, Singapore is gravely concerned about the escalating tensions in the Middle East, which have put at risk efforts to secure a ceasefire agreement in Gaza. This should be the foremost priority. Singapore firmly supports the ceasefire proposal announced by the United States (US) on 31 May 2024 which was welcomed, in fact codified, by the United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution on 10 June 2024. We urge parties in the conflict to arrive at an agreement. As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepens, Singapore continues to stand with the international community in calling for an immediate ceasefire, we call for the unconditional and safe release of all hostages and we also call for unhindered humanitarian access. We also reiterate our call for all sides to comply with international law, including international humanitarian law.

The second point I want to make is that Singapore calls on all parties to de-escalate tensions and that there is a real and rising danger of a wider regional conflagration that needs to be avoided. We condemn all attacks on civilians, including the recent attacks across the Israel-Lebanon border, as Mr de Souza had alluded to. With respect to Lebanon, we urge all parties to fully implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which inter alia called for the full cessation of hostilities and the establishment of a demilitarised zone in the south of Lebanon, permitting only the UN and Lebanese armed forces.

Mr Speaker, I will now take the questions related to the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. This Advisory Opinion was published on 19 July 2024.

Advisory Opinions of the ICJ carry significant weight in the international legal system and contribute to the development of international law, even though they do not in themselves create legally binding obligations. The Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 that was requested by the UN General Assembly is significant. It focuses on Israeli policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the issue of Israeli settlements. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has announced that he will put the Advisory Opinion to the General Assembly to decide how to proceed in this matter.

Singapore’s long-standing position on Israeli settlements has been consistent and clear. Singapore views the Israeli settlements as illegal under international law. The settlements make it much harder to arrive at a viable two-state solution. Singapore has consistently voted in support of UN General Assembly resolutions that reject Israeli settlement activities and call upon Israel to rescind all unilateral measures that have been taken to change the status of Jerusalem.

Singapore’s long-standing position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that the only viable pathway to a comprehensive, just and durable solution is a negotiated two-state solution, consistent with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. And we continue to urge both parties to resume direct negotiations and to, in the meantime, refrain from unilateral actions to attempt to change the status quo because this will hinder the peace process.

Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians need to have the political will to make the necessary concessions required in order to achieve a durable peace. Given the difficulties and complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Singapore’s approach remains to be constructive, to be helpful, to support all efforts towards peace. And we will continue to support international efforts to create the necessary conditions that will enable this peace process to begin again. This was the key thrust of my remarks to the House on 2 July 2024.

Mr Speaker, the safety and security of Singaporeans in the Middle East region is our key concern. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has existing travel advisories against travel to Lebanon and, in particular, the Israel-Lebanon border, as well as the Israel-Syria border. But I have to inform the House that there is, in fact, one Singaporean currently e-registered in Lebanon, who has insisted on proceeding with the trip despite knowing the dangers. MFA will remain in close touch with all the Singaporeans who are e-registered in the region. Our Embassy in Tel Aviv stands ready to provide consular assistance. All travellers to the Middle East are strongly encouraged to e-register with MFA and to please take precautions for personal safety.

Mr Christopher de Souza.

In the Minister's view, is this a political, social or religious issue, or is it all three? If it is all three, how will we ensure in Singapore that this foreign issue does not impact our social compact and social cohesion?

This is a long-standing, complicated issue. The Member has mentioned that there may be political, social, religious dimensions. There will also be historical, cultural, geographical and economic dimensions to it. Basically, there is no easy solution. There is also, unfortunately, no quick and instant solution.

The main point that I think the Member is trying to raise is that given the complexities of the issue and the fact this is going to be so long-standing, how should Singapore and Singaporeans respond. Given that we are multiracial, multilingual, multi-religious, we are an open city, we depend on free trade, we depend on the import of energy. The point is that events far away can have profound impact on us. They can affect us economically, they can also affect our social, ethnic, religious harmony.

This is something which we need to be very, very mindful of. Therein the point is as the Member had made – this is a foreign nation, this is something far away, but we should not under-estimate the impact that it can have on our society. I think our paramount concern should be to maintain the unity and cohesion of all Singaporeans, that we are entitled to different opinions, different reactions even. But above all, maintain our own domestic cohesion and collectivity. And then, we can play our role as a responsible member of the international community, standing for peace, standing for international law, upholding principles, providing humanitarian assistance wherever it is needed. And then, maintaining our communication channels open with all parties, even though some of these parties may be at war or doing things which, quite frankly, we find abhorrent.

That is the position which I am trying to encourage us to maintain. So far, you would have noticed that we have access to all parties. I have been to Palestine, I have been to Israel, I have been to the Middle East. You would also recall that so far, Singaporeans have raised more than $17 million of assistance – and these funds have come from Singaporeans of all races, languages and religions. We have been able to work with our partners across the Middle East to deliver this assistance.

I hope Members of this House will see that even in this dark hour, the unity of Singaporeans, the good will and generosity of Singaporeans, and the calm, measured, principled, consistent, diplomatic posture of Singapore is something which has been noticed and appreciated – certainly in the Middle East, but even on the international stage.

Mr Alex Yam.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Questions for the Minister. I note that the Minister shared that there is one Singaporean who is e-registered to travel to Lebanon and has decided to proceed. I also further note that there are one travel notice and two travel advisories dated 17 April, 14 April and 7 February for the region.

The first supplementary question is, is the Ministry aware of how many Singaporeans remain in the immediate vicinity of the region, who are either registered or unregistered? And if the Ministry assesses the situation to become more serious, although this is rarely done, will MFA issue a stricter travel advisory for Singaporeans to completely avoid travel to the region?

By definition, MFA will not be aware of Singaporeans in the region who have not e-registered with us. I have already mentioned we have at least one in Lebanon. We have several in Israel – I do not have the exact number. I want to be quite categorical – frankly, as far as MFA is concerned, it is not a matter of how strict. We have signalled unambiguously through our travel advisories and notices, "Please don't go to hotspots where safety will be an issue" or where we anticipate that further regional conflagration is a real and present risk. If that happens and you get into trouble, of course we would not leave you behind, but you are actually generating enormous work and concern, and sometimes even risk to the officers in MFA.

Again, I make this appeal. Unless there is really, really no choice, please do not go and please do not give us unnecessary extra work. And I say this not because my officers are not willing to do the work – my officers are. I would also want to make this point that MFA has got officers throughout the Middle East and I had never had a single officer come up to me and say, "There is a clear and present risk, please don't send me."

So, I hope this House will also join me in expressing our appreciation and admiration for the Foreign Service Officers who put themselves on the frontlines, at risk, in order to represent us and to safeguard our interest and to help Singaporeans.

Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Thank you, Speaker. The Foreign Minister had previously characterised the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a family quarrel. So, I raise a question for the Foreign Minister, whether it is still appropriate to characterise the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a "family quarrel", in light of the ICJ's advisory opinion?

I think we should never trivialise the tragedy that is unfolding there. Maybe for the Member's edification, let me remind you of a speech which Senior Minister Lee made in November last year. It is worth reading just one paragraph of that speech.

He said, quote, "We are also watching closely, events in the Middle East. The re-eruption of the Israel-Palestinian conflict has impacted Singapore. Like people elsewhere in the world, Singaporeans identify with the plight of Palestinian people. Muslim Singaporeans, especially feel this strongly. But, in fact, all Singaporeans are appalled by the human suffering in Gaza as Israeli attacks target there, as they were also appalled by Hamas terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023 that prompted this IDF military operations. The quarrel between the Israelis and Palestinians is not our quarrel, but it impacts our society. The Government has to take a national position that upholds our consistent principles and, which considers the sentiments and feelings of our population. We feel sympathy for the civilian victims on both sides and will extend humanitarian help to those in need. But we must not let problems elsewhere widen fault lines in our society. Let us indeed build on and strengthen our social harmony."

So, that is the context, Mr Leong – do not let problems elsewhere widen our potential fault lines. And none of us should seek to do that or take advantage of that for political point scoring. That is the real message to you and, indeed, it is a reminder to all of us.

Again, as I said, we can all have different perspectives and views. We may be informed by religion, social conscience, our own interpretations of history. But the paramount point here, let us not be divided. Do not play up fault lines.

And it is possible, and I hope in the fullness of time, it will be shown that Singapore is a mature, cohesive society that can deal with diversity and still rise up to the occasions, uphold principles, not take sides, be helpful, express the best part of our humanity and our compassion whilst understanding that life is complicated, especially in many other places. I think if we can approach this with this spirit of humility and realism, we can be a useful exemplar to other parts of the world where these fault lines have not only cracked, but have led to enormous loss of life and, especially, innocent lives of civilians. I think on that note, we are all completely united.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that the Minister has said that Singapore has access to many of the parties on all sides of the conflict, does Singapore have any plans to play some role to bring together the different sides, even in some small way?

Mr Gerald Giam accompanied me on my trip in March. So, you will know that, yes, we do have access and yes, they do listen politely to us, because we have got long-standing relations and they know we do not grandstand and we do not engage in point-seeking and we are not engaged in a publicity exercise. But I think you would also agree, from your trip with me, that there is a very, very limited role for us. It is not a question of a venue for meeting or even offering good advice. They are not short of advice and they are not actually short of venues to meet or avenues of communication.

But until the top leaders in the two warring tribes can arrive at a conclusion that violence is not the answer and that concessions are essential, and that these two related people have to learn to live with each other. Both peoples occupying contested land are not going to leave and they will be a reality for each other till the end of time. It is that realisation and that change in spirit and perspective that will be necessary.

So, I think as far as Singapore is concerned, we stay united, we help where we can, we uphold principles and we insist on adherence to international law on all sides.

I think our excess is also because they know we are fair-minded people and that we are prepared to help wherever we can help. But let us not overstep ourselves or assume that we have got a greater role than we can actually play. At the end, this is one little red dot, a shiny red dot, but we are still far away and many steps removed from them.

I would also remind you when we went and there were discussions about one state and two states. And you will recall the conversation which I had with some senior people to say, "Well, if you want a one-state solution, your delegation must look like mine: multi-religious, multiracial and completely united, even across political boundaries". But I think you would have also got a sense from that trip that is very far removed from the reality in the Middle East, at least for now.

So, again, I think this spirit of humility and consistency and upholding what is right, whilst maintaining the unity amidst our great diversity – I think that alone, is our contribution to show the world that it is possible to live in peace with your neighbour, with your brother.

3 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether an update can be provided on the status of the clean-up work on our beaches and coastal areas which had to be carried out following the oil spill at the Pasir Panjang Terminal on 14 June 2024.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will also address the question for written answer filed by Mr Melvin Yong.

The clean-up operation is progressing well. We have completed the first phase of the clean-up. The second phase of the clean-up which focuses on difficult-to-clean areas like rock bunds, breakwaters and oil trapped deeper in the sand is well underway. Some beaches have progressed to the final phase, where volunteers are mobilised to participate in the clean-up and accelerate the re-opening of the beaches.

Our beaches will be re-opened as clean-up operations are completed. As of today, Siloso Beach at Sentosa has re-opened for all water activities. Several parts of East Coast Park have re-opened for land-based activities. We plan to complete the cleaning of all affected beaches within the next one month or so.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the response. I have two supplementary questions. What are the total expenses incurred so far for the clean-up of our beaches and coastal waters? Does the Government have an estimate of the losses suffered by our locally based businesses as a result of the pollution to our beaches and coastal waters? Can the Government provide an update of the assistance which the Government has been rendering to these businesses so far?

Mr Speaker, we have not, at this point in time, totalled up the costs of the expenses. We are focusing our attention on the actual cleaning-up which I think deserves our priority and also our urgent attention. As to estimation of losses and also updates on other business considerations, I think this is not related to the Parliamentary Question that Mr Dennis Tan had filed. So, I do not have the answer for him.

4 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry can provide an update on the progress of Singapore’s "30 by 30" goal that aims to produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030; and (b) whether the recent spate of local farm closures will result in a delay of reaching this goal by 2030.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my response to Mr Melvin Yong's Parliamentary Question (PQ) will also address related "30 by 30" PQs filed by Mr Dennis Tan, Mr Don Wee, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Last month, my Ministry responded to PQs by several Members regarding the "30 by 30" vision. As the PQs for this Sitting are related, let me first provide a brief recap.

Since its formation, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has been undertaking efforts to grow our local agri-food sector, alongside import source diversification and stockpiling. Local production adds to Singapore's food security by helping to buffer the impact of supply disruptions.

The "30 by 30" vision was conceived in 2019 as an ambitious aspiration of building the capacity and capability to locally produce 30% of our nutritional needs by 2030. At that time, there was strong investor interest in the global agri-food sector, a low interest rate environment and lower global energy prices. Since then, the business climate has become less favourable due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical tensions and inflation. Ms Hazel Poa asked about the impact of rising business costs on the farming sector.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and initial phase of reopening, our farms faced a shortage of foreign workers and construction delays. Since then, in the post-pandemic period, inflation and energy price hikes exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, as well as a more challenging financial environment, have added to their challenges.

Some farms have taken a pause in development works to re-evaluate and fine-tune their business models. Global agri-tech companies have also not been spared from these headwinds. That said, while there have been some farm closures, we are also seeing existing players looking to expand their operations as well as new players entering the agri-food sector. So, overall, the total number of land- and sea-based farms have remained relatively stable at about 250 since 2019.

Given the nascency of our agri-food sector and the challenging environment, SFA has provided our farms with support in various areas, including availing land and infrastructure for farming, improving energy efficiency and productivity, and increasing demand offtake for their produce.

First, we are making land and infrastructure available for farming by regularly launching land and sea space tenders. In 2022, we also introduced the option for the typical 20-year land lease and sea space leases to be extended for a further 10 years to give more certainty to farms when planning and seeking investors. To Mr Don Wee’s question, we will continue to press on with the Lim Chu Kang Masterplan and co-develop the Singapore Aquaculture Plan with our stakeholders, including other Government agencies, nature groups, academics, industry players and offtakers.

Second, we have increased support to farms to improve their energy efficiency and productivity so as to reduce their cost and to increase revenue. To Mr Dennis Tan’s query on how the Government will assist businesses in coping with business cost challenges, SFA ensures that the Agri-Food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund remains relevant in meeting farms’ business and growth needs. In 2022, the ACT Fund was enhanced to extend the higher co-funding quantum of 70%, or up to $6 million per project, to a wider range of food types, such as fruited vegetables, mushrooms and shrimps, allowing more farms to benefit from this higher co-funding. The ACT Fund encourages our farms to invest in productive and resource-efficient technologies that can help to manage resource use and, consequently, operating costs. In 2023, SFA introduced the Energy Efficiency Programme (EEP) under the ACT Fund to co-fund energy efficiency audits and the adoption of energy-efficient equipment and technologies to help our farms better manage their energy costs for the longer term.

Ms Hazel Poa asked about the Government’s support for traditional open style agriculture. Given the reality of our limited land, manpower and natural resources, farms that adopt more productive, climate-resilient and resource-efficient farming methods have greater commercial viability potential. Regardless, SFA assesses all farm applications for the ACT Fund and considers the merits of each case, each and every proposal on its own merit, and its ability to contribute to our food security.

Third, we are working to increase demand for local produce. SFA is supporting the industry through the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited (SAFEF). SAFEF has taken on the role of an industry level supply and demand aggregator that partners farmers, traders and food processing companies to better match demand and supply. Through the efforts of SAFEF and its partners, locally grown vegetables and fish are now sold under the brand names “The Straits Fish” and “The SG Farmers’ Market”, respectively, at FairPrice supermarkets under a six-month trial. And, in fact, consumer response to these products have been encouraging.

So, consumers, too, can play a role in strengthening our national food security. They can choose to purchase local produce which can be easily recognised by the red “SG Fresh Produce” logo or dine at food establishments using local produce under the Farm-to-Table Recognition Programme. Together, we can continue to safeguard Singapore’s food security.

Members have also asked about the progress for “30 by 30” and if we remain on track despite the recent news on farm closures. To Mr Zhulkarnain’s question on the reasons for the farm closures, let me explain that these are commercial decisions that are farm-specific in nature. And as with any nascent sector, our agri-food sector will need time to grow and prove their business models.

The “30 by 30” vision has always been an aspiration, which seeks to rally our collective efforts around the important task of enhancing Singapore’s food security. As my Ministry shared in our reply to Parliamentary Questions on this matter last month, we have achieved some results in a few areas. For example, our local egg production now contributes more than 30% of local consumption, an increase from 26% in 2019. Local beansprout production has also come in at more than 50% of local consumption. So, the progress is expected to be uneven. Some sectors will move ahead faster and closer to our aspirations, some will still need some collective efforts from all of us. We have seen both new and existing farms harnessing technology and innovation to scale up production and operate productive, viable models. Some have expanded their operations to higher value products that better cater to consumers’ evolving demands. I want to assure Members that SFA will continue to anchor more of such farms and help them to scale up over time.

Mr Melvin Yong.

Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I would like to first acknowledge the good work of the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and SFA in recent years to incubate and also grow our local farms. As consumers, we must support locally grown produce so that our local agriculture sector can flourish and also act as a buffer when food supply disruptions happen periodically. I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Minister of State.

First, I would like to ask for an update on the utilisation rate of the $60 million ACT fund, which the Senior Minister of State has mentioned, and whether the Ministry could consider extending the use of this grant to offset high operating expenses, such as the rising electricity costs.

Second, the survivability of our local farms hinges on a predictable and consistent demand as this impacts their cash flow. So, I am very glad to hear that the National Environment Agency and SFA have partnered associations, such as SAFEF, to create a demand aggregator. My question is: can this collaboration be extended to supply a collective pool of local produce to our local hawkers? We can work through the hawker associations. This can result in a win-win outcome where farmers get more certainty in demand and our local hawkers get fresh quality local ingredients.

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. On the utilisation of the ACT fund and what is the extent of the projects being funded, as of 30 April this year, SFA has awarded $25.7 million to 42 companies under 68 awarded projects. So, there are still available funds for companies that want to tap into this fund to expand their businesses, adopt technologies and to use it for energy efficiency purposes.

As I said in my main reply, we did enhance this fund with the energy efficiency programme so that farms can tap on this fund to do energy audits, look at their current operations and see if there are equipment or processes that could be altered, so that they can adopt more energy-efficient measures. It could involve things like changing the type of LED lights so that it is more energy-efficient. It could include things like adopting solar panels so that you can get some more renewable energy sources that could well be cheaper than energy from the grid. These are measures that farms can adopt to defray some of their operating energy costs.

But to directly offset operating expenses, that will be something quite challenging because it could well end up having the perverse effect of paying for inefficient players to offset their costs to the detriment of taxpayers' money as well. So, we want to fund them so that whatever they do, has durability and sustainability for the longer term and fundamentally changes the way the company operates for a more sustainable future.

On whether demand aggregation can work with hawkers, I think SAFEF and the farms are prepared to explore. But it is not a straightforward issue of trying to ask the hawkers to buy from the aggregator because many of these hawkers and businesses have already established relationships with specific suppliers, and it is probably not so easy for them to change this kind of relationship overnight. But if there are particular hawker associations, particular groups of hawkers in a particular locality, who are keen to come together to do some group buying, I think SAFEF will be prepared to work with them and discuss longer-term contracting models where there is more constancy of supply with good quality and there is also better demand for the farmers themselves. So, if there are hawker associations who are keen, do get in touch with SFA or SAFEF directly.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. As we go for more resource- and energy-efficient models of agri-tech production, would the Ministry consider taking a more active stand, beyond just grants, to look at areas of R&D, scaling and commercialisation? What I meant by that is, for example, actively curating technologies that may be functional and would work to enable the success, and introduce it to the different businesses so that we have a higher chance of getting this programme on the road.

Sir, I thank the Member for her question. Indeed, the ACT Fund actually does both. The ACT Fund also has a technology adoption component that allows farms to adopt technology that has already some degree of curation by the expert panels, so that these are easier to adopt as they are technologies that have some degree of proven record. The ACT fund also allows innovation to take place at the farm level, if they want to try a new innovation based on current base technology to unlock new potential. So, the ACT fund already allows farms to adopt it to do both the things that the Member has asked for.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Ang Wei Neng –

5 To ask the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) how many websites or phone applications of Government and Statutory Boards were affected by the recent outage on 19 July 2024 that was caused by a software update; (b) how long did the affected websites or phone applications take to restore it back to normalcy; and (c) what are the lessons learnt from the said outage.

6 Mr Don Wee asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) how many Government agencies were affected by the software update from cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike which caused a major technological outage globally on 19 July 2024; and (b) whether the Singapore Government subscribes to CrowdStrike’s services.

7 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) what is the Ministry’s assessment of the impact to Singapore due to the tech outage caused by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike’s software update on 19 July 2024; (b) whether any Government agencies or critical public services have been affected by the outage; and (c) what is the Ministry’s contingency plans for such global tech outages that may impact Singapore’s socio-economic security.

8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with regard to the recent IT outage caused by CrowdStrike (a) whether the Cybersecurity Agency of Singapore (CSA) has updated its threat and risk assessment protocols to cover supply chain risks of this nature; (b) if so, whether these updated protocols will be implemented across all critical information infrastructure (CII); and (c) what new strategies are being considered to enhance the resilience of CIIs against systemic propagated shocks that are not directly linked to cybersecurity threats.

9 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information with regard to the global IT outage that occurred on 19 July 2024 (a) whether the Ministry has conducted an overall local impact assessment; and (b) if so, what are the Ministry’s findings and whether any measures have been implemented to prevent such a recurrence.

10 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Digital Development and Information (a) whether the Government will conduct an After-Action Review (AAR) to assess Singapore's preparedness and response, and identify areas for improvement, in light of the recent global technology outage; (b) what key considerations will guide such AAR; and (c) whether the Government will (i) develop a local technology ecosystem or (ii) stipulate guidelines that will implement redundancy systems to insulate our essential services from global disruptions as part of digital resilience.

Question No 5, please.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer together Oral Question Nos 5 to 10 on today's Order Paper, Written Question Nos 27 and 28 on today's Order Paper, and Question Nos 60, 64, 65, 66, 68 and 69 on yesterday's Order Paper, filed by Members like Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Mr Desmond Choo, as they are all related to the outage of information technology (IT) systems caused by CrowdStrike's faulty software update on 19 July 2024?

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, my response will also cover the matters raised in the Oral Questions by Assoc Prof Razwana Begum1,2,3, which are scheduled for a subsequent Sitting. With your permission, Sir, I would also like to invite all interested Members to seek clarifications after I have given my reply today. If the questions have been addressed, it may not be necessary to proceed with the Questions for future Sittings.

Please proceed.

Sir, on 19 July 2024, a faulty software update by cybersecurity service provider CrowdStrike disrupted major services around the world. Images of the now infamous "blue screen of death" appeared in media news cycles and attracted significant public attention. According to public reports, outages were experienced by users of the Microsoft Windows operating system that adopted CrowdStrike’s Falcon Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) solution. It is a security solution that requires frequent and timely updates to be effective.

The Members' questions fall broadly into two categories: first, what is the impact of the outage in Singapore, particularly in relation to services provided by the Government; second, what are the lessons learnt, particularly in relation to the resilience of our IT systems.

Fortuitously, Government services and most essential services in Singapore were unaffected by the outages. However, some businesses that use CrowdStrike's Falcon EDR solution were affected. In most cases, the impact was to internal staff. In a minority of the cases, customers were impacted due to service disruptions. Prominent examples of these were the passenger check-in for some airlines at Changi Terminal 4 and gantry operations at some Housing and Development Board carparks.

Customers of affected businesses met with delays and were inconvenienced. However, business continuity plans kicked in. These included switching over to manual processes, such as for flight ticketing and check-in. The Singapore Cyber Emergency Response Team (SingCERT) of the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) also quickly issued an advisory to guide affected systems administrators and users on how to manually recover their systems. Most of the affected systems recovered within a day and services returned to normal.

As Members know, IT systems may experience outages and disruptions from time to time. In this particular instance, it is not yet fully understood what caused a relatively routine software update to have created such major disruptions around the world. My Ministry has set up an internal task force to engage relevant partners to gain insights into the incident and assess if further measures should be taken to improve Singapore's resilience when such disruptions occur.

In the meantime, one key lesson can already be reinforced. As we have said on previous occasions, even with best efforts, not all disruptions can be prevented. Systems owners should, therefore, have plans in place to help them recover quickly from unexpected disturbances.

On its part, the Government adopts a risk-based approach to ensure that our critical systems and Essential Services (ES) are resilient. Critical Information Infrastructures (CIIs), ES and Government services are all subject to stringent requirements and have to put in place robust business continuity plans, disaster recovery plans and incident response plans.

The Cybersecurity Act and specific sectoral regulations hold CII and key ES operators accountable for meeting the baseline security and resilience requirements. This includes timely review of risk assessments and audits. For example, Government agencies using third-party software in their information and communication technologies (ICT) systems have to do a thorough risk assessment and put in place the necessary mitigation measures. CSA also established the CII Supply Chain Programme to better manage key vendor supply chain risks.

Businesses must also play their part to improve their resilience when disruptions occur and recognise that it is in their own as well as their customers' interests to do so. When things are running smoothly, businesses may question why they should incur cost or prioritise efforts to assess and improve their resilience measures. Unfortunately, some may not take appropriate action until it is too late.

We therefore encourage businesses to conduct their own risk management and assessment measures and put in place the appropriate business continuity plans to help business continuity in the event of a disruption. SingCERT has recently published an advisory on building digital resiliency, which can be found on CSA's website. As part of the support for enterprises' digitalisation, my Ministry offers other practical resources and financial assistance to encourage robust IT practices. This includes CSA's cybersecurity toolkits and IMDA's SMEs Go Digital Programme.

While these efforts may not specifically address IT outages like the one related to CrowdStrike, they can help businesses prevent incidents and recover more quickly should disruptions occur. I also encourage all businesses to take advantage of the Government's resource support to strengthen their digital resilience.

Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Minister. The Minister mentioned that businesses should have contingencies in place. Could I ask the Minister, with regard to critical infrastructure, for example, businesses and airlines that are operating at our airports, whether we should have compulsory requirements? Because as we saw at our airport during the outage, most airlines were able to cope, whereas some airlines faced longer disruptions. This experience, although it is related to the airlines, does also reflect on Singapore on a whole. As such, will the Ministry consider making it compulsory for some businesses to adopt contingency plans?

Mr Speaker, actually, it is in the businesses' own interest to have contingency plans in place. If they are affected, or if their customers are affected, certainly, the operational impact could be considerable. Certainly, their reputations are also at risk. The Government has to adopt a risk-based approach and that would include being quite careful about the occasions when we impose compulsory requirements.

If we attempt to prescribe the measures that businesses must take and we are not careful as to the occasions that we do so, firstly, it could take agency and the sense of ownership away from the IT systems' owners, because then the thinking could be that, if the Government does not say so, then we do not need to do. That would be to the detriment of all of us.

Secondly, it is also, from a sense of humility, that we decide that this is not a good approach, because there are so many different components that go into a system's resilience. To imagine that we have full understanding of all the different things that could cause major disruptions is, I believe, unwise.

I should also say that, in this particular instance, it was a fairly innocuous software update. No one could have expected the amount of disruption that it caused around the world. So, I would say that we will, in certain instances, require measures to be mandated. But in the vast majority of the cases, it is important to allow the systems owners and, indeed, to require the systems owners to take ownership, to build up their systems' resilience. That is still the approach that we would prefer to take.

I see many hands up. I will call Members but let us keep the questions succinct and the answers likewise. Miss Cheryl Chan.

Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. I agree with the Minister that these software systems are relatively complex and, generally, you do not just have a single supplier supplying to the overall system. The question would be, for the Government agencies, as we are going more digital or promoting digitalisation in our society, how can we ensure there is sufficient coordination with third-party suppliers, such that any change that they make on their independent end does not affect our overall system?

Sir, it is an excellent question. If I could seek your indulgence, it deserves a fuller response.

Firstly, the use of third-party software is unavoidable because technological systems are complex. Third-party software can offer a wide range of functionalities to meet the requirements of various organisations, the Government included, and this saves time and resources from having to develop such software from scratch. When using third-party software in their ICT systems, Government agencies are required to undergo a thorough risk assessment and to put in place the mitigating measures. That is already baseline.

To the extent possible, agencies must put in place quality assurance measures to ensure that the software changes that will be inevitable will not introduce errors in critical systems. Such measures include testing software updates in controlled settings prior to going live. IT people are very familiar with this – you test it in a controlled environment before you put it to the overall system and then see what happens.

We also deploy software changes progressively to small groups of users before rolling it out widely. This usually allows us to catch and isolate issues early. But I say "usually" because it does not happen all the time. There are ways in which the system components interact with each other that are not always possible to map out so clearly. In addition, agencies with critical systems are required to review the change management processes of their software providers through regular independent audits. This ensures that software changes can be rolled out smoothly and securely.

In some instances, depending on the service provided, it may be beyond the control of users, including governments. For example, Software as a Service will put the onus on the vendor to ensure that their software remains secure and available for use. This is something that we will have to keep in mind and see what we can do about.

To the Member's specific questions – when we have exercises, for example, are different partners in the supply chain involved? Possibly, if they have a major impact on the system's usability as well as resilience, but there are so many vendors involved and it may not be possible to include all of them in the exercises.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister.

Sir, much of the legislation introduced recently covers cybersecurity risks. However, as this major outage caused by CrowdStrike was not a cybersecurity attack but a supply chain failure, specifically, a bug in the software update from the vendor, does the current legislation adequately address the risks posed by supply chain failures in digital infrastructure? And would the impending Digital Infrastructure Act have mitigated the impact of the outage caused by CrowdStrike?

Secondly, this incident also highlighted the risk of a single point of failure having widespread impact on digital infrastructure. A similar issue was observed with the Mobile Guardian mobile device management software used in schools which have affected thousands of students, many of whom discovered to their horror that they lost their study notes just before their weighted assessments. Is the Government looking at encouraging or even mandating operators of CII to review their IT procurement practices and diversify their sources of vendors so that no one software can bring down an entire system?

Mr Speaker, the hon Member has a number of questions rolled into his supplementary. Let me try and deal with supply chain risks more broadly and what we do about them in CII.

In fact, CSA's threat and risk assessment for CII already cover supply chain risks of this nature today. So, it is not something that is new or unknown or we are caught by surprise in that regard. We have put in place measures to tackle the supply chain risks that the CIIs face, holistically.

For example, under the Cybersecurity Code of Practice, CII owners must adopt, to the extent possible, the Defence by Diversity principle. To explain to Members what this means – take any IT system. If the system does not have much diversity in terms of its defences and a single attack vector can immobilise the most key components of the system, then the system does not have Defence by Diversity. If the system wants to achieve Defence by Diversity, what the system owner needs to do is to have a different variety of vendors that the system owner works with, different system architectures to the extent possible, different configurations, different communications pathways and, indeed, different vendors for whether hardware or software.

So, Defence by Diversity is something that we ask CII owners to adopt to the extent possible. That is also why, in many instances, we emphasise how software systems ought to be interoperable. Because if interoperability is not common, then you can imagine that for system owners, they are stuck. Once system owners use system A, they must also use the other related systems for A. If they cannot choose to use B, then they do not have that diversity. So, that is a very important principle. It is already part of the way we operate.

The threat and risk assessments are also reviewed at regular intervals so that they remain up to date. Additionally, CSA has also introduced the CII Supply Chain Programme. I mentioned this earlier. This was in 2022. What does the Supply Chain Programme help, whether it is Government agencies or, indeed, any other system owner, achieve? It gives them a toolkit to help identify and inventorise their vendors.

It is very often the case that when something happens, system owners do not know what hit them, even if it has been reported in the media that this was a particular software failure, because the system owners may not know that their systems contain this particular software. So, a simple fact of inventorising what goes into your system is already no small feat because of the number of vendors involved along the whole supply chain.

So, the toolkit helps the systems owners to also assess and rate their cyber supply chain risk using a standardised vendor management methodology. So, that is another thing that we have put in place. To the Member's point about a single point of failure, we agree and there are ways in which we mitigate against that.

For Government systems, critical functions are required to cater for redundancy. You must be able to have a failover, and this could include both the hardware and software components, networks and databases, as well as even aspects of the physical environment. So, this is something that is already practised and you can always improve them.

The Digital Infrastructure Act that we had talked about will seek to improve resilience that are over and above what needs to be done within the cyber system environment. We will have more details. We are in the process of consulting with the various stakeholders and, in due course, we will be able to say more about that.

Ms Hany Soh.

I thank the Minister for sharing with us in relation to answering our Parliamentary Questions (PQs). I have one supplementary question. I understand that investigation is still ongoing, but I am curious to find out whether the relevant investigation team has already been in touch with Microsoft to understand what are the preliminary issues and what are the undertakings that they will endeavour to do to prevent such a major technical glitch from happening again.

Sir, the short answer to the Member's question is yes, from the first hour.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for her response. My supplementary questions pertain to public confidence in Government digital services. What measures are in place to ensure that public confidence in Government digital systems is maintained, especially in the wake of outages like the CrowdStrike incident as well as the Ministry of Education's Mobile Guardian cyberattack? Secondly, how does the Ministry plan to communicate resilience efforts to the public to reassure them of the reliability of Government services?

Sir, I think there is no doubt in all of the Members' minds that when an incident of such a nature happens, inevitably there will be questions about digital resilience. There will be questions about why we should continue to engage digitally for the most important transactions in our day-to-day lives and people are naturally concerned about the reliability. So, we fully understand that.

I think there is no shortcut to achieving public confidence. We need to be able to put the systems in place. We need to also demonstrate that when disruptions occur, and they inevitably will occur, we are able to recover very quickly. It is not different from how our residents will feedback to us about their confidence regarding lift systems. For example, the lifts will, from time to time, break down. It happens in every constituency and the residents will very naturally also tell you that, "I can accept that, as long as you are able to recover it within a short time". There is a difference between the lift system being out of service for two weeks, versus two days, versus two hours. And that is also the approach that we must take.

And there is no amount of assurance that you can provide, except by demonstrating that this is indeed possible, which is why our emphasis has to be on the ability to respond to incidents. It also has to be a whole-of-system approach. It cannot be just the Government being able to do this.

As I explained earlier in my reply, in this case, Government services and essential services were largely unaffected. This is not to say that we are secretly happy that nothing happened so badly and that the hit was taken by others. That is not the approach at all.

Citizens do not differentiate how the disruption occurred. It occurred. And whether you are at the car park gantry not able to get out or whether you are at the check-in counter not able to get your boarding pass, you feel just as annoyed or you feel that something has failed you. We understand all of that.

So, it requires all of the actors, all of the stakeholders in the system, to be able to work with a single-minded focus on ensuring resilience of their systems.

Ms Jessica Tan, please keep the question short.

Speaker, I thank the Minister for covering the PQs quite comprehensively. Related to the PQ I had filed, can I just ask, because the Minister also made the important point that you cannot predict all disruptions and disruptions will happen. And because it is so complex – as part of my PQ, I had asked this as well – is there a requirement for organisations, not just the Government, to test their response and resilience plans more regularly? Because you can have the plans in place, but if they are not tested, you do not know whether the systems will fail and if they fail, it is also the response plans because the response plans are both operational as well as digital.

Mr Speaker, the response to the Member's question is very similar to the response to the first set of questions that were posed in supplementary. It is actually in the companies' and systems owners' own interests to assure their stakeholders that they regularly test their systems and their systems have resilience.

Where appropriate, we would, of course, put out what are good practices – and the Supply Chain Programme that we introduced together with the toolkit is one example. Mandatory requirements, if and when they have proven to be essential, foundational to all services, we are not averse to putting them in place. But we are still very mindful that there is such a great diversity in the systems and digital products and services that are being delivered to citizens, that a one-size-fits-all set of requirements may not really do the job but may, in fact, add to resources being diverted to meeting these compliance requirements without achieving the necessary resilience and usability that system owners should be striving for.

Last supplementary question, Dr Tan. Keep it short, please.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for her answer. I start by declaring that I have Clementi residents who were affected by the Mobile Guardian outage and that I have also filed a PQ yesterday on Mobile Guardian. But this question is more generally to the Ministry of Digital Development and Information. Can I ask, in the approach to stress testing and vulnerability testing of gov.sg systems, does the Ministry envisage applying the same level of testing to key vendor systems outside gov.sg? This is because even though we can outsource services, outsource authority, but ultimately, as the key stakeholder, we cannot outsource responsibility.

Mr Speaker, I think the Member's question is very specific to gov.sg, nothing to do with CrowdStrike, actually. But briefly, nobody is outsourcing responsibility for gov.sg. It is entirely the Government's responsibility. Gov.sg is a sender ID that is also protected by the SMS sender ID registry that we set up some time ago. The whole reason for requiring all Government communications with citizens, with the public, on SMSes to go through gov.sg is so that we can secure this channel more robustly.

And I can share very briefly that extensive testing was implemented before the roll-out and, indeed, the roll-out was also first to a smaller group and then to a bigger group. So, I hope that addresses the Member's question.

11 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of five social media platforms directed to block a network of 95 accounts (a) what were the reach of the posts containing videos on the leadership transition in Singapore; (b) whether any of the three accounts that belonged to Himalaya Singapore were operated by residents or foreigners stationed in Singapore; (c) whether there were additional posts initiated by the said 95 accounts after 10 May 2024 on Singapore's leadership transition; and (d) what were the lessons learnt from this episode.

Sir, there was low reach in our local information space. After 10 May 2024, we did not detect any further posts from the network of 95 accounts carrying malicious narratives on Singapore's leadership transition. Our investigations have not found any evidence that Singaporeans or persons based in Singapore are responsible for the 95 accounts.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

This episode is a reminder that Singapore is vulnerable to Hostile Information Campaigns (HICs) because of our small, open and highly digitally connected society. The ubiquity of technologies, such as the Internet, social media and artificial intelligence (AI), has made preparing for and carrying out HICs much easier. HIC tactics range from polarising societies by exploiting fault lines and manipulating public opinion on sensitive issues, to undermining trust in the Government and institutions.

Legislative levers, such as the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or FICA, to prevent, detect and disrupt HICs, are important. However, this alone will not be enough. Public vigilance against foreign interference is equally important. We urge Singaporeans to be discerning when consuming and disseminating information online. We should always fact-check the information, to see if it is accurate and authentic, against a credible source.

Mr Ang Wei Neng.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, can the Minister of State reveal what are the resources devoted to monitor such hostile interference and how would the Ministry of Home Affairs scale up the resources in a sensitive period? Thirdly, are there other hostile interferences, maybe not as large scale as the one that was just mentioned, but especially of those sponsored by the state?

I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. We monitor the online space and we will not hesitate to use appropriate levers, including the use of our FICA directions. For national security reasons, we are not able to disclose details of operations against foreign interference in Singapore.

Ms Hazel Poa, next question.

12 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) where does the funding for the free shuttle bus service in Marine Parade GRC, MacPherson SMC and Mountbatten SMC come from; (b) what is the cost for funding such service for a year; (c) what is the justification for limiting the service to only residents of those constituencies; and (d) whether such funding can be also made available to other constituencies, and, if so, how.

13 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the public bus services in Marine Parade GRC, MacPherson SMC and Mountbatten SMC are adequate to meet the residents' needs; and (b) whether the free shuttle bus service which began on 8 July 2024 for these constituencies have met the financial prudence criteria for provision of public transport.

14 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the specific inputs and assessment of LTA on the provision of a community-specific shuttle bus service through the South East Community Development Council and People's Association, in Marine Parade GRC, which is an additional service outside the public transport system; and (b) whether LTA assesses a potential need for similar supplementary services in other parts of Singapore to improve last-mile connectivity.

15 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the total cost of the cluster-wide community shuttle bus service covering Marine Parade GRC, MacPherson SMC and Mountbatten SMC as announced by the South East Community Development Council and the People's Association on 30 June 2024; and (b) how much of the expenditure for this one-year pilot is attributed to (i) public funds (ii) donations or (iii) other sources, respectively.

16 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry can provide resources to Community Development Councils to launch free shuttle bus services to other areas such as Tengah New Town and Bukit Batok West Extension; and (b) what are the considerations for doing and for not doing so.

17 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) since the start of the Marine Parade Cluster shuttle bus service, what has been (i) the average daily ridership and (ii) the average load factor of the service; (b) what is the total amount budgeted for the service; and (c) why is the People's Association and South East Community Development Council providing public transport services directly and only for those residents instead of working with LTA to improve public transport services for all commuters in the area.

Culture, Community and Youth): Mr Deputy Speaker, can I have your permission to take Question Nos 12 to 17 on today's Order Paper together, please?

Please do.

Sir, Community Development Councils, or CDCs, were established to foster community bonds and strengthen social cohesion. They develop and implement new initiatives for their districts, to foster a more inclusive community, taking into account residents' profiles and the needs of their respective districts.

CDCs rally the community to donate to community causes. They also provide matching grants to support ground-up community projects that meet the priority needs of the community. The Grassroots Advisers of Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency (GRC), MacPherson Single Member Constituency (SMC) and Mountbatten SMC, collectively the Marine Parade Town Cluster, proposed a shuttle bus service that could complement the existing public transport service, to better connect residents to key nodes within the Marine Parade Town Cluster.

Several factors were considered. These divisions have a high proportion of residents who are seniors. Seniors have given feedback that as they age and get more frail, it is more physically challenging to walk to the various transport, healthcare and community nodes. A significant part of Marine Parade Town Cluster also comprises older estates with narrow roads, which are difficult to be served by large public buses.

Sir, such community-based shuttle bus services are not new. In the past, a few Grassroots Advisers too have raised funds to organise such services in their respective divisions.

In the case of Marine Parade, they have decided to do it as a Town Cluster and for the shuttle bus to ply designated routes, with a limited number of designated stops, such as at polyclinics, neighbourhood centres and Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations.

The shuttle bus operates in non-peak hours from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm on weekdays, excluding public holidays. The route is designed to help residents, especially frail and older residents, get to amenities more easily, encourage them to continue leading active lifestyles and remain connected to the community.

The shuttle bus pilot costs approximately $1 million to operate annually. It covers a total of seven shuttle bus routes, operated by seven buses. This works out to approximately $150,000 per division, for each route.

The South East CDC supported this pilot with a one-off seed grant of $200,000. This amount came from matching grants that the Government provides to every CDC. Essentially, the Government matches donations raised by the CDCs with grants, which the CDCs can then use to support ground-up initiatives that foster a cohesive and inclusive community. The rest of the amount – in fact, the bulk and majority of the amount – was raised from donations by the South East CDC, as well as by the respective Marine Parade Town Cluster Grassroots Organisations. So, the South East CDC funding through the one-off seed grant comes up to about $2,400 per division per month.

Sir, the pilot has just started and it is still too early to make an assessment on the effectiveness of the service. To date, over 10,000 have registered for the shuttle, of which over 40% are seniors aged 65 years and above, and around 1,000 residents have taken the shuttle service every week over the past three weeks.

Beyond utilisation, the critical factor is the financial sustainability of the service. The CDC grant was provided on a one-off basis. So, Marine Parade Town Cluster Grassroots Organisations will have to eventually raise funds to cover the entire cost of operations or to refine its financing model for greater sustainability.

Operating an efficient and successful shuttle service at this scale is not straightforward. Many previous attempts at trying out local shuttle services have been discontinued because of low utilisation or financial challenges. Hence, there are still many aspects of the service to validate and to refine through this pilot. The other CDCs will study the experiences and findings from the pilot first, before considering starting similar initiatives.

Sir, today, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) plan for public transport services, taking into consideration commuter demand, connectivity to key transport nodes and amenities, and financial sustainability. This does not preclude localised efforts – for example, private shuttles by condominiums or people sector transportation for seniors – to address very specific needs. LTA was consulted to ensure that the shuttle bus services would not adversely affect public bus operations when using bus stops. This is similar to what LTA would do for other privately-operated shuttle services.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Sir, I had filed the specific Parliamentary Question (PQ) on LTA's role in the roll-out of the Marine Parade Cluster bus service to MOT, but this was re-directed to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY). So, I have no choice but to put my supplementary questions to MCCY.

Sir, over the last few years, there has been significant public unhappiness reported among Singaporeans across the island when bus rationalisation exercises have been undertaken to remove bus services with the operationalisation of new MRT lines. This was most recently manifested late last year when residents in Sembawang, Yishun, Ang Mo Kio, Bishan and Bukit Merah raised unhappiness about LTA's decision to amend services 75, 121, 162 and 859, and in addition to performing a U-turn to cancel bus service number 167.

Commuter grouses over the bus service rationalisation exercise centred on the loss of a direct bus route connecting northern Singapore to the city and the inconvenience of having to make multiple transfers.

Mr Singh, I appreciate you want to give some context, but could you please ask your questions in light of Question Time being guillotined at 12.30 pm?

Noted, Deputy Speaker.

In striking contrast, the Marine Parade Cluster Bus Service was announced about a week after new MRT stations were opened along the Thomson-East Coast Line in Marine Parade GRC. Does the Minister of State not agree that the introduction of the Marine Parade Cluster Bus Service will make it far more challenging for the Government to undertake future bus service rationalisation exercises, especially in view of the growing population of seniors in many mature estates in Singapore who, like the residents in Marine Parade, would prefer easier and more convenient accessibility to polyclinics, hawker centres and MRT stations?

My second supplementary question: in 2022, my colleague Gerald Giam had said in this House that LTA should strive to retain trunk bus services as these serve many elderly and disabled residents and suggested switching to smaller buses or extending bus intervals instead of removing services.

On the launch of the Marine Parade Cluster Bus Service, Minister Edwin Tong was quoted as saying, "Even with a widespread transport system of public buses and MRTs, there is sometimes a gap, and that gap can translate into something that is quite difficult, especially if you are a senior."

And on 30 July, after the Parliament deadline for Members to file PQs had passed, LTA announced a $900 million —

Again, Mr Singh, I appreciate you want to give context, but could you please get straight to the question?

I will come to the question, Sir.

Thank you.

LTA announced the $900 million Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme. My question, Sir: in view of Singapore's growing population of seniors, where one in four Singaporeans will be 65 years of age and above by 2030, does the Marine Parade Cluster Bus Service open the door for LTA to introduce similar cluster services elsewhere in Singapore through the public transport system? And if not, what does the launch of the Marine Parade Cluster Bus Service say about the Government's approach to equity and fairness in the use of taxpayer-funded grants to serve Singaporeans? Thank you for your indulgence, Sir.

Sir, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his supplementary questions. With regard to the broader connectivity questions, might I ask the Member to file a separate PQ to LTA? But given that this —

He did!

Yes, for a larger perspective on connectivity issues.

But let us focus on the Marine Parade Shuttle Bus because Members have all filed related questions on the Marine Parade Shuttle Bus. And let me, as MCCY, explain the context of this shuttle bus. And I will leave it, and if there are separate questions with regard to LTA and MOT, from a wider national perspective, to file those specific to MOT and LTA.

So, let me provide that context.

First, this is a ground-up initiative. It is a ground-up initiative, very similar to other kinds of ground-up initiatives that the CDC supports. And let me just share with Members that, for example, the CDC supports community markets or Ready for School Kits, for example. They support these through grants, but a proportion of that is also funded by, for example, grassroots organisations, donors. So, this shuttle bus can be seen as also a ground-up initiative.

At the same time, the purpose of this bus was meant to serve as an added convenience. Let me provide further context where there are other divisions which also set up similar kinds of bus service. And, as I said, in my original reply, it is difficult to sustain because of utilisation rates as well as financial sustainability.

So, there are other kinds of bus services that have been trialled by other divisions. There is one, for example, where the local community had asked to provide a shuttle bus service to a local mosque. That was a one-off project for the Ramadan period. That one was funded primarily by the local CCC, for example.

Then, there is another bus service that was run specifically to get seniors to get out of their homes so that they can be active, be connected to community. That one was donor-supported, but was discontinued because of low ridership.

And then there were others where it was a bus service to help seniors to get vaccinated. And that is fully funded by sponsors.

So, these are the different kinds of bus services that are available or that have been set up by local divisions.

For this particular pilot, as I mentioned in my reply, the CDC will review this after one year and determine whether this works, and then, we will consider whether it is suitable for other divisions.

Minister Chee Hong Tat, do you want to say something?

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to respond quickly to two of the points that Mr Pritam Singh mentioned earlier in his questions.

First, as Minister of State Alvin Tan mentioned, this shuttle bus at Marine Parade is a pilot community initiative. It is therefore separate from the public transport network.

So, when we responded earlier to Mr Gerald Giam's suggestion to have shuttle buses be part of the public transport network, we explained that that would not fit well because you would still need to hire a driver and the capacity may not be enough to run as a public bus, part of our public transport network.

The second clarification to what Mr Singh mentioned earlier, we will continue to do rationalisation and optimisation of bus routes that run parallel to the MRT lines. I have mentioned this when we announced the Bus Connectivity Enhancement Programme, because this is part of how we make better use of our limited resources. So, the savings from the optimisation of the bus routes, the long trunk routes, can then be used to support new bus services that are needed because we have new estates coming up in different parts of Singapore.

But our assessment is that doing that alone would not be adequate because we have more demand than what we can rationalise. Therefore, we are pumping in an additional up to $900 million over eight years to be able to support more buses, hire more bus captains, so that we are able to meet the connectivity needs of our residents in both existing towns, but also in the newer estates.

Ms Hazel Poa.

I have two supplementary questions.

Firstly, Minister of State Tan has not replied to part (c) of my question, which is why is the shuttle bus service limited to only residents of those constituencies?

Secondly, like what the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, I have filed a question, which is Question No 13, but directed at the MOT and somehow it was redirected to MCCY. I would like a clarification on why this question was redirected because the question is actually under the purview of MOT.

Sir, I mentioned that this is a ground-up initiative, largely private donor-funded. If Singaporeans visit, for example, the Singapore Government Partnerships Office (SGPO) portal, they can approach the CDCs and in fact they have done so to come up with local community projects. This is one local community project and that is where CDC funding comes in as a seed fund. As I said, it is one-off. It is a pilot to see whether there is use, potentially. They will assess it after one year to see whether it is useful to do it elsewhere.

But I wish to caveat, and I had mentioned in my reply, that it is not very straightforward, that these are subject to utilisation rates, these are also subject to financial sustainability.

So, it is unique to a particular division. If Singaporeans have an idea that they want to moot to, for example, the SGPO or the CDC, they can submit their proposal and the CDC will look into it. This is quite similar because it meets the specific local priority need. The CDC looked at it, they provided some seed funding, but the majority of it is funded by donors to the Marine Parade Town Cluster. I think that helps to answer the question.

Last question, Mr Gerald Giam.

Sir, I do not believe that the Minister of State has answered my question regarding the average load factor of the bus service since it started. This is important in determining whether the service is being properly utilised.

Secondly, why are the Grassroots Advisors who are also People's Action Party Members of Parliament fronting this service, for example, having their caricatures painted on the side of the buses and an article published in the petir.sg website, when public transport is something that should be provided by the Government through LTA and its public transport operators to all residents of Singapore?

Sir, with regards to Mr Gerald Giam's first question, it is still very early to assess it. It has only been running for about three weeks. So, the CDC, as I mentioned earlier on, will look at the ridership as well as the load and see whether that works.

For the Member's second question, that has been answered in response to Mr Leong Mun Wai's written PQ yesterday. The short answer is that there are pictures of other Marine Parade landmarks, including Wisma Geylang Serai Market and Old Airport Road Hawker Centre. These all help residents who would have familiarity with these landmarks and people who are familiar to them, to identify the buses. [Laughter.] I understand that, for example, Marine Parade and many other divisions, to help seniors recognise their blocks, have also put up images to help them to find their way. So, that is what is being done and that is also done to support many other seniors.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the day and Notice of Motion. Yes, Leader of the Opposition.

Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence. I believe, on one occasion, in the previous session of Parliament, we had extended Question Time because of the large number of questions on the Order Paper.

Can I request Deputy Speaker and perhaps even the Leader of the House to consider extending Question Time for about 15 to 20 minutes so that we could go through some of the supplementary questions on the Marine Parade Town Cluster bus service? With your indulgence, please.

Thank you for your suggestion, Mr Singh. We have actually extended Question Time by five minutes. So, my order stands.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the day and Notice of Motion.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [6 August 2024], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang, Member for Nee Soon]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Ms See Jinli Jean.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I applaud the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee, comprising Members of Parliament Louis Ng, Poh Li San, Edward Chia and Hany Soh for the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. The Bill assures businesses and individuals of legal protection when they donate safe, surplus food to benefit households that struggle to meet their food needs. I support the Bill.

For the Bill to improve food security for those in need, steps must be taken to ensure that surplus food can be channelled safely and efficiently in sustainable and long-lasting arrangements. In this regard, I would like to suggest three measures for the Review Committee and the Government to consider alongside Bill implementation.

First, the Government could consider extending tax exemptions to businesses and individuals who been regular in channelling surplus food to recipients directly or through intermediaries. This would incentivise businesses to formalise food donation activities which would in turn stabilise food aid supply in Singapore. There is precedent implementation of such initiative in Colombia. Allow me to share.

The Global Food Donation Policy Atlas reported that the Colombian government allows food donors to claim a tax credit of up to 25% of the value of donations made to food bank members and other organisations that promote health, environmental protection, human rights and poverty reduction. I would suggest a closer study of this initiative as there could be valuable learning for Singapore.

Second, if well implemented, the Bill would elevate the extent and scale of food rescue and redistribution. This would mean that food rescue organisations would hope for more resources and support to enhance cold chains, to cater for adequate storage facilities and to continually train their staff and volunteers to know how to keep different types of food safe for consumption. Ultimately, the well-being of recipients is priority and I hope that the Bill can open doors for more of such help to flow.

Third, food rescue and redistribution efforts must be paired with public-private schemes and support that provide lower-income families with dignified, sustained and adequate access to nutritious food.

The Lien Centre for Social Innovation released its Hunger Report in 2020. The report brought to the fore the stigma surrounding food support. The report shared that food-insecure individuals more often experienced negative emotions of sadness, stress and embarrassment that might result in them shying away from help to meet food needs.

Because dining out at hawker centres and coffee shops is a mainstay for many Singaporeans, a lower-income family that can partake in affordable hawker meals alongside others in the community could feel more assured and secured in meeting their food needs and less burdened by negative emotions.

Hawkers that are committed to providing affordable and nutritious meals for lower-income families are thus integral to strengthening the food security and morale of these persons in need. These hawkers should be supported and I urge the Government and operators to consider extending subsidies or stall rental rebates to them. This matters because enhanced welfare for vulnerable families should not be at the expense of economic survival of hawkers, many of whom are self-employed and are working hard to make a living.

In summary, this Bill is a step towards building a kinder society. It shines a light on how some businesses and individuals have helped and how more businesses and individuals can now come forward to help to channel safe, surplus food to households struggling to meet food needs. By strengthening empathy and connections among the broader public, the Bill is a game-changer that can help to dismantle the social stigma surrounding food support while giving food-insecure families the confidence to benefit from food support that is dignified, sustained, adequate and enriching. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Miss Rachel Ong.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am encouraged to witness the introduction of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, which aims to incentivise donors to reduce food waste without fear of legal repercussions. May I share some points of clarification and considerations that need to be addressed regarding the Bill?

Firstly, in conversation with a food rescue organisation we have worked with through the Telok Blangah Pulai Eco Club, it is important to note that while many well-meaning donor retailers or wholesalers contribute items that are past their "best before" dates but still in good condition, some companies use this as a means to dispose poor-quality items.

Food rescue organisations, despite their best efforts, may not be able to thoroughly inspect every donated item. Therefore, it is crucial to clarify whether the Bill will also protect these intermediary groups and who would be held liable if unsafe food is distributed.

Secondly, the term "donor" typically refers to those who give without receiving monetary incentives. However, some food rescue social enterprises may ask for donations or nominal fees to support sustainability efforts. It is important to determine if the Bill will cover these groups and establish requirements for their inclusion.

Moving on to points for consideration, it is essential to complement the implementation of the Bill with public education. This broadens the acceptance of rescued foods and should inform individuals on the different date labels, such as the distinction between "expiry," "best before" and "use by" dates. Understanding the difference between safety-based versus quality-based date labels is crucial to reducing household food waste.

Additionally, educating consumers on what shelf-stable items are is equally vital, especially since overseas manufacturers may not use date labelling terms accurately. Items, such as soy sauce, uncooked rice or salt, can be kept almost indefinitely when properly stored, further supporting this effort.

Rescued food should be embraced by everyone, not just those in need. While it is crucial to prioritise the needy in distributing donated food, it is equally important for the entire society to cultivate a mindset focused on reducing food waste for meaningful and collective effective efforts in Singapore.

Second consideration: public-private partnerships are vital for scaling food waste reduction efforts. I call on the Government to encourage corporations and suppliers to reduce food waste through measures, such as well-designed tax incentives on surplus food donations and supporting companies that implement effective waste reduction strategies.

Why explore tax incentives? While liability protection such as the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill removes barriers to food donation, tax incentives directly encourage food donation. Food donors need to invest time and resources in packing, storing and especially in transporting surplus food. These food items would otherwise be discarded, often at no cost to them. Tax incentives can help offset these expenses for them.

Having said that, to prevent potential misuse and ensure that the system encourage genuine efforts to reduce food waste, it is important to set sensible limits on the total amount of tax incentives available to each organisational food donor annually. Such tax incentives have already been adopted in the United States (US) and various European Union (EU) member states in efforts to minimise food waste.

In Japan and Australia, companies that adopt innovative waste reduction methods, such as tech-enabled inventory management, receive substantial government support and recognition. Voluntary commitments by organisations across the food system, such as those seen in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK), with initiatives like the Courtauld Commitment, have created industry-wide movements to reduce food waste. These efforts are also strongly supported by the respective governments.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill represents a crucial advancement in the fight against food waste by safeguarding donors with good intentions. By defining liability and expanding protection to social enterprises and food rescue organisations, we enhance its impact across the broader community.

Addressing food waste requires a collective effort from the entire nation and demands a widespread societal transformation. Beyond legislation, it is essential to implement programmes that educate consumers while requiring businesses to take proactive steps in reducing food wastage. I am confident that together, we can establish a more sustainable and responsible food system in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Keith Chua.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I first mention my involvement in commercial food services and catering, and also as an office holder in the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS).

I would like to thank the hon Member Mr Louis Ng for introducing the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. I would also commend him on the brevity and general simplicity of the Bill. It makes for easy and pleasant reading.

In introducing this Bill, Mr Ng mentioned it had been a four-year journey. The Bill intends to reduce food wastage and increase food available for the redistribution to food-insecure communities. Food wastage cannot continue to increase without responsible response at both national and international levels. Many initiatives continue in this attempt to curb food wastage. We must do our part in Singapore to reduce food wastage across all the areas, within our ability to do so.

Most of us in Singapore are blessed with the ability to afford all our meals. We are, however, aware that there are communities in our midst facing challenges to place food on the table, each meal, for various reasons.

Food wastage takes many forms. Some years back, a National Environment Agency (NEA) study found that each household disposed of about 2.5 kilogrammes of avoidable food waste each week. If each household took action to distribute some or most of this, Mr Louis Ng will see the tangible results of reducing unnecessary food waste and, concurrently, making food available for the food-insecure communities.

I accept that this may be too simplistic and general. Though efforts in this direction can result in many, many more good Samaritans stepping forward across Singapore. The parable of the Good Samaritan illustrated that we can and should show love for everyone beyond just family and friends.

I would like to now touch on some areas related to food services: catering and general retail and distribution of food.

The food and beverage (F&B) industry continues to face high operating costs. As a result, cost of food, whether raw or prepared, is often carefully controlled. Most operators will control inventory to minimise spoilage from overstocking perishable items. There are constant efforts to keep improving operational efficiencies and managing the bottom line. Controlling food wastage at source is primary in a sustainable F&B business.

Most commercial F&B operators require licensing and follow strict compliance requirements toward food safety and hygiene. Cooked food is to be consumed within stipulated time limits and consumers are provided with this information.

Owing to the health and safety regulations and also the cost controls by F&B operators, there would seem to be limited amounts of prepared or cooked food suitable for donation. Some foods, such as breads and pastries that have longer shelf life, may remain safe for consumption, though the quality may be affected after a period of time.

However, this does not suggest that the F&B industry cannot still be Good Samaritans. I would encourage the F&B industry, wholesalers and retailers of food in all forms, to be generous and work with groups, including the hon Member, to make available food to meet the basic needs of food-insecure sectors of our communities. Many F&B operators donated generously during COVID-19 and this spirit of generosity can find new avenues as we strive toward a more caring society, caring for each other and also caring for the environment.

Moving to the other sectors of food, may I suggest that wholesalers and retailers review the timelines set on donating food reaching expiry dates? It is, of course, clear that every business needs to stay profitable and viable. However, for those that continue to do well, perhaps donating dry goods with a longer shelf life can achieve the dual objectives of reduced wastage and more food for those who can benefit from such donations.

In passing this Bill, there should be guidelines on what types of food should not be donated, purely for health and safety reasons. Some suggestions from a RAS survey include exclusion of milk-based food and shellfish – generally, food that easily spoils.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move now to the second objective, which is the redistribution of consumable food.

Mr Louis Ng did a great deal of research and consultation in the four years and has reached some level of confidence that by absolving donors of liability there would be more food available for donation. In his opening remarks, Mr Louis Ng mentioned that with the removal of liability, some hotels and restaurants would be prepared to step forward and donate food. May I ask if he has identified other groups who are currently reluctant to donate but would possibly step forward with this protection from liability?

I initially struggled with the exemption of liability on some basic principles. The intended beneficiaries are fellow human beings who must retain their dignity and basic rights. In all likelihood, they would be vulnerable and, therefore, may need guidance. Unfortunately, if they do get ill from consuming donated food, they would have the added struggle of medical costs. It remained unclear to me what possible circumstances could contribute to illness if the food donated was safe and healthy at the point of donation. Could Mr Louis Ng provide us some examples the Bill intends to address this?

May I also suggest that there be sufficient channels of guidance for the food-insecure communities to, firstly, assist them in making the right choices; and, secondly, advise them of their rights.

Through this Bill, Mr Ng has continued to advocate for the need to being responsible in the area of food wastage and highlighting the existing needs of fellow citizens and residents who do not have access to three meals a day. We must continue to work on both these areas.

Successful implementation, looking ahead, could, therefore, bring us to this scenario where: firstly, efforts to reduce food wastage bring good results; secondly, food will still find its way to the food-insecure as part of the reduction in food wastage; thirdly, there may, however, be less food available for donation from the many sources as food wastage reduces. However, hopefully, when we get to that stage, there will be a sizeable reduction in those in our community who continue to be food-insecure.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in keeping with the brevity and relative simplicity of this Bill, may I conclude by lending support to the Bill and thanking the hon Member, Mr Louis Ng, for bringing this to the House.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in Tamil, please.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. It is always a shame to waste food and in Singapore.

According to a 2022 article on the SG Government website, Singaporeans throw away a total of 2,000 tonnes of food every day. The same article suggested at least half of this is in the form of bread, rice and noodles. It could have been prevented.

This Bill aims to alleviate some of this food wastage. In particular, in relation to providers of food donations, provided certain safeguards are met, they would be protected from liability from recipients of their food.

The safeguards are both rigorous and reasonable. These are: one, the food must not have been "unsafe" for consumption when it left the control of the food donor; two, the food donor must inform the recipient of the handling requirements for the food so it remains safe for consumption; three, the food donor must inform the recipient of the food of the time limit for consumption; and four, the food donor should comply with food safety and food hygiene when handling the food.

Many of these are the same matters that the authorities would look into even today if there is a complaint. The main difference is this legislation sets out a positive list of requirements, which if met, would mean the food donors do not have to worry about liability from their food being eaten by recipients.

There are many organisations and people that currently collect and redistribute food from potential donors to recipients. This Bill aims to support the work of these organisations and groups by making their legal responsibilities clear and easy to comply with. I therefore support this Bill.

Ms Joan Pereira.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that this Bill, when enacted, will encourage more food donations, thereby reducing food wastage and increasing the supply of food to our charitable organisations and households who face food insecurity.

Last year, Singapore disposed over 1,700 tonnes of food waste daily, including a lot of usable and edible food in good condition. One of the ways to reduce this wastage and contribute to food sustainability is to get suppliers and stores to donate their buffer stocks and surpluses. As storage space is costly, many companies have found it easier to just throw away and dispose of the food.

I strongly urge the Government to do more to educate and incentivise them to donate these precious foods. This would require some effort and coordination and, hence, I appeal to the Government to provide the necessary administrative and infrastructural support to help them get started on this journey of donation. The Government, food suppliers and stores, voluntary welfare organisations and volunteers, need to work together to develop an efficient and safe logistical supply chain to effectively channel such food donations to charities and beneficiaries. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I hope that the Government will provide more information to suppliers and commercial entities about the benefits of food donation and implement measures to motivate them to donate. As the donation process requires them to provide manpower and other resources and do coordination work, I therefore request the Government to provide the necessary administrative and infrastructure support to help them start on their donation journey. The Government, food suppliers and shops, voluntary welfare organisations and volunteers need to work together to develop efficient and safe logistics supply chains to effectively channel these food donations to charities and beneficiaries.

(In English): In some countries, such as Spain, businesses could face fines of up to €60,000 if they fail to reduce the amount of food they throw away. This Bill does not propose such a punitive measure, but waiving the liability alone may not be enough to move some suppliers and sellers to donate. Perhaps a tax incentive would be helpful and I hope that the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and the Ministry of Finance can consider this suggestion.

The Bill excludes situations of gross negligence, given the requirement that the food donors will still need to comply with all prevailing laws on food safety and food hygiene. May I ask if MSE can share more details of how it will enforce applicable regulations for donated food and whether there will be differences in how checks will be conducted?

I am happy to note that this Bill will provide liability protection for donors as well as the intermediaries, such as food banks and other charitable organisations, distributing the donated food. The Bill is also well-crafted in spelling out the responsibilities and duties of each party at every stage of the donation process, while ensuring food safety and hygiene, protecting the recipients. Hence, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill and I applaud the efforts of hon Members Mr Louis Ng, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia for advocating the timely support of this crucial Bill that holds significance for our society and community. This Bill presents us with the opportunity to make a meaningful impact, particularly in the realm of community support and philanthropy, to encourage food rescue and food donation without the risk of criminal and civil liability for donors. Allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] One major aspect that is addressed by this Bill is to facilitate the processes for food contribution and donation, especially during events and important dates such as the month of Ramadan, the Prophet Muhammad's birthday and the Islamic New Year, when many generous donors will donate food for the congregants in the mosques and our community in general.

Our mosques, madrasahs and Muslim welfare bodies currently play an essential role, such as preparing dishes for the breaking of fast and pre-dawn meals. Many generous Singaporeans are also keen to donate in kind or spend their time cooking for the needy.

One inspiring example comes from the Al Firdaus Mosque located in the Keat Hong area. This mosque has consistently and tirelessly provided and served pre-dawn meals or meals for the breaking of fast for thousands of foreign workers living in the dormitory at Lim Chu Kang, which is near the mosque.

During each Ramadan too, the M3 network in Chua Chu Kang collaborates with the mosque to mobilise the manpower to distribute porridge that was donated by the public regardless of race or religion.

I have visited the mosques in Chua Chu Kang and all of them welcomed this amendment Bill. Previously, mosques that receive food donations would require donors to fill in their details in a form and require them to sign an indemnity form, so that the mosque and volunteers will be released from any claims for damages should anyone fall ill after eating the donated food.

However, that does not release them from any criminal liability. Hence, this Bill is expected to encourage even more donors and organisations to donate food because donors will have immunity from any civil or criminal liability. We will also hope to encourage the habits of food savings.

(In English): Speaker, in Keat Hong Chua Chu Kang, we receive many generous donations and contributions of food by kind-hearted individuals who want to give back to society. These come from individuals and also food rescue from the nearby farms in Keat Hong. Some of them take time to cook each month, specially for this. Take, for example, Mr Ong, a hawker from Teck Whye market who uses his time off to cook vegetarian bee hoon, which we distribute to residents monthly. Mr and Mrs Song, hawkers from Boon Lay, who contribute packets of chicken rice during our People's Action Party (PAP) branch’s free monthly haircut sessions for seniors in Keat Hong. These efforts have been ongoing in the town for years. They do this out of the kindness of their hearts but they face the potential risk of liability. It is time for us to repay their kindness.

While we welcome this Bill with open arms, it is essential to recognise that it is not a cure-all solution. One notable inclusion in the Bill is the exclusion of criminal liability, allowing Good Samaritans to step forward and organisations to do more for the community. However, prudent parties may still wish to take certain precautions, such as obtaining waivers or disclaimers of liability from consumers, seeking indemnity from donors, conducting due diligence on donors where possible and providing training to volunteers and raising awareness among beneficiaries regarding the donated food.

It is crucial to strike a balance between responsibility and philanthropy. In this regard, I have a clarification. Clause 4 of the Bill excludes civil or criminal liability in respect of any death or personal injury that results from the consumption of the food. However, section 2C of the Sale of Food Act's definition of unsafe food, which definition is imported in this Bill, uses the phrase "cause illness or injury or other physical harm to a person".

Given this disparity in the definitions used in the Bill as compared to the Sale of Food Act, is the Bill's scope narrower, focusing solely on death or personal injury, or should it also encompass illnesses or other physical harms as envisaged under the Sale of Food Act? This clarity is vital to prevent any ambiguity or disputes in the future.

Based on the current definition used in the Bill, any illness caused by the consumption of the donated food may not be caught under the Bill. If the intent in this Bill is to be consistent with the Sale of Food Act, then may I suggest importing the same phrasing used in section 2C of the Sale of Food Act within the Bill, meaning to cover "any illness, injury or other personal harm or death" that results from the consumption of the donated food.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I end this speech, I echo Mr Louis Ng's gratitude to the countless people and organisations who have supported in the process of the tabling of this Bill. Back in 2017, in my voluntary role with the self-help group AMP Singapore, we collaborated with Free Food For All to distribute over 9,000 meals to under-privileged households. It was a record number at that point in time. Free Food For All’s founder, the late Mr Nizar Shariff, was a Singaporean of the Year finalist and a winner of the President’s Volunteerism and Philanthropy Awards. Mr Nizar passed away last year.

I believe that this Bill represents a significant step forward for us to create more such individuals in our society in fostering a more caring and supportive community, where individuals and organisations can come together to make a positive impact without fear of criminal or civil liability from the donated food. Let us embrace this opportunity to extend a helping hand to those in need and create a stronger, more compassionate society for all. Sir, notwithstanding my clarification, I stand in support of the Bill.

Ms Hany Soh.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is the culmination of the close collaboration and consultations with various stakeholders for an important social cause. For this, I am grateful for having been able to work with my Parliamentary colleagues, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Poh Li San and Mr Edward Chia, alongside our PAP activists as well as industry players, social enterprises, public agencies and the community. The passage of this Bill is a milestone but not the end of our journey. We will continue to engage with the relevant stakeholders and community. There will always be room for further improvements.

According to the statistics tabulated by NEA, 755,000 tonnes, or rather 755 million kilogrammes, of food waste were generated last year. The amount was 813,000 tonnes in 2022, and 817,000 tonnes in 2021. Against this backdrop, and paradoxically, food insecurity remains a live issue. The Food Bank Singapore Ltd has produced over two million meals annually in the past three years. These are staggering figures.

The purpose of this Bill, as set out in clause 3, is to reduce food waste and increase the availability of food for redistribution to food-insecure communities. Through our consultations, we learnt that a key concern of our current and prospective food donors is liability, both civil and criminal. As shared by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Louis Ng, in his opening speech, there are many donors and potential donors out there who would like to contribute but are understandably concerned about incurring liability, despite taking every precaution and doing their utmost best.

In Woodgrove, I am grateful to have many community partners and residents who are supportive of our call to embrace green sustainable living, reduce food waste and do good "For the Community, From the Community".

Several green sustainable events in Woodgrove, both large and small scale, have been held through the years, providing opportunities for residents and community partners, such as schools, to contribute ideas and take part in supporting our nation’s SG Green Plan goals. Events, such as our Woodgrove's World Environment Day, which is held on an annual basis for our community, would regularly see strong support by our community gardeners, donating their fruits and vegetables that were grown in over 100 plots of community gardens across Woodgrove.

In July 2023, Woodgrove set up our weekly community pantry located at the heart of Woodgrove, where residents are welcomed to help themselves with food rations and daily essential items which were donated by community partners, such as temples, as well as residents who have requested to remain anonymous but chose to do good for our community. I am heartened that during a National Day block party in Woodgrove held over a recent weekend, we announced a Woodgrove-FairPrice Group collaboration, under which the FairPrice Group, being Singapore’s largest retailer and one of the working committee members of this Bill, will be on board as another enthusiastic community partner to support our expansion of the community pantry initiative to benefit a larger community in Woodgrove through its Community Fridge Restock Initiative, which aimed at providing blemished but edible fruits and vegetables to families and individuals in need across Singapore for free.

These are just some examples of the many good work we have heard that are in progress in the community, which many are looking to operationalise and even expand under and upon the passage of this Bill, for our residents’ and the wider public’s benefit.

At the same time, I also hope that the Singapore Food Agency would continue to guide us in this important mission, such as coming up with clear and specific food safety standards and best practices for the purposes of this Bill that will be implemented by all food donors and understood by all of the donees as well. One particular area would be the public education on the significance and difference between "best by" and "expiry" dates used, like what my Parliamentary colleague, Miss Rachel Ong, has shared earlier. Would these categories of food be, therefore, acceptable and safe for consumption?

Mr Speaker, following the passing of this Bill, we should and we will keenly monitor and continue to engage the relevant stakeholders on the implementation and operations of food donation. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The purpose of this Bill is set out at clause 3, which is to reduce food waste and increase the availability of food for redistribution to food-insecure communities. Through our consultations, we learnt that a key concern of current and prospective food donors is liability, both civil and criminal.

We found that the balance of donors' and ultimate recipients' interests may be struck, by providing protection against liability for donating food where food safety laws in the handling of food have been met. This, would be a win-win. Perhaps collaterally, this Bill would also hopefully bolster Singapore’s "30 by 30" food security goal. With less wastage, the need for increased production could be ameliorated.

Recently, there has been a spate of mass food poisoning cases which reminded us the importance of complying with food safety laws when handling food. As members of the public, either as donors or beneficiaries, we must not take it lightly. I hope the relevant authorities such as SFA to continue working with community partners to increase public awareness of food safety. I support this Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this Bill. This Bill will help to cut down on food wastage while ensuring food safety and hygiene for recipients. The liability waiver will go a long way to empower all stakeholders, from the suppliers to donors and volunteers, to save and distribute edible food with peace of mind.

The amount of food waste in Singapore has increased by about 30% in the last decade. Such wastage is not right nor sustainable. I hope all stakeholders can do their part to anticipate demand more precisely and reduce potential wastage.

In the face of increasing challenges for food production and transportation, due to international conflicts and extreme weather, unpredictable conditions, food prices are expected to keep going up. Moving forward, we will have less room for waste. As a nation which imports 90% of our food, we need to invest more effort to identify points of wastage and work together to move unsold products to the needy expediently.

One of the greatest concerns we all share is our hot and humid weather condition. Food spoil quickly in this climate. For cooked food, for safety, they need to be eaten within four hours of preparation. Other products, such as bread and fruit, mould within days. We require a robust cold chain logistics network to support donors. The unpredictable amounts of donated food from different sources pose a challenge for storage and distribution by voluntary welfare organisations. Would the Government consider supporting interested donors to advise and assist them on food storage and transportation?

Suppliers and stores, together with the Government, should also clarify food expiry labels, such as "best before", "use by", "expiry", for the benefit of consumers and donation recipients. This is an important step to reduce the amount of food discarded prematurely.

Compared to other countries with similar legislation, such as the US, I would say that our proposed conditions are on par with these other countries.

I agree with the proposals in the Bill, such as for the food to meet the Sale of Food Act, that the food must not have been "unsafe" and "unsuitable" for consumption when it leaves the possession or control of the food donor, and that the recipients be informed of handling requirements and time limit for consumption.

In the EU, the labels on the donated food must also indicate the presence of common allergens. It would be a good condition for us to consider including as well. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Food donation can effectively reduce food waste. However, because donors are afraid of trouble or worry about legal liability due to food safety issues, they would rather throw away the food than donate it. However, there are still many families in need in our society. After all, we cannot stop eating because of the fear of choking. By legislating to exempt food donors who meet food safety and hygiene conditions, we will encourage food donations, reduce food waste, and help families in need. The experience of the US, Italy and other countries has proved that effective food donation laws can significantly promote food donation behaviour.

At the same time, we must have balance in the new legal framework and not go too far. If the conditions for exempting food donors from liability are too cumbersome, it will increase the cost for potential food donors, which will reduce their willingness to donate and lead them to do the convenient – discarding food. This leads to us missing the original goal of our legislation and the loss will outweigh the gain.

In addition to exempting food donors from liability through legislation, the government can also implement incentive measures. I have thought of tax incentives, however, tax incentives have pros and cons. They may inadvertently incentivise people to stockpile or over-purchase, causing unnecessary waste which is exactly the opposite of what we want to achieve.

In general, our legislation needs to balance the interests of food donors and the ultimate beneficiaries. It is the most basic requirement that food donors must comply with food safety regulations when handling food. The implementation of the Good Samaritan Food Donation legislation can not only reduce food waste, but also help people in need and reduce the burden on the environment.

(In English): I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Ms Ng Ling Ling.

Mr Speaker, according to NEA's data, food waste accounted for 11% of the total waste generated by Singapore last year. I thus welcome the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill as I believe that it will further encourage the donation of surplus or unsold food to the needy, tackling the problem of food wastage in a meaningful and purposeful manner through redistribution to communities, families and individuals in need.

Notwithstanding this, I would like to raise some clarifications on the implementation of the proposed section 4 on the waiver of criminal and civil liability.

Let me start by first acknowledging the good work of various community organisations in food rescue and redistribution, such as Food from the Heart and GoodHood. These non-profit organisations have been at the forefront of addressing food insecurity among our vulnerable communities through ground-up support for food programmes.

Food from the Heart, for instance, has been collecting unsold and excess food and groceries from supermarkets and bakeries, and distributing them to those who struggle with food insecurity. Their initiatives, such as the School Goodie Bag and Community Food Pack programmes, have benefited the less fortunate families and children in our communities.

Similarly, GoodHood has revolutionised the concept of neighbourhood sharing through their "GoodHood.SG: Neighbourhood App", encouraging residents to share surplus food and other resources with their residents, with their fellow neighbours in need. Such ground-up approach not only fosters neighbourliness but also encourage Singaporeans to actively participate in the sustainability cause.

My residents in Jalan Kayu have benefited from many of such food donation efforts and I am deeply grateful to them.

Like several of my hon Parliamentary colleagues have mentioned, I note that there have been similar legislative efforts by other countries to encourage food donation. In the US, the Federal Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act enacted in 1996 protects donors from liability when donating to non-profit organisations. Similarly, Italy’s Good Samaritan Law protects those who donate food in good faith from civil and criminal consequences of their actions and limits their liability arising from food safety rules. Instead of legislation, some other countries, such as the UK’s Courtauld Commitment 2030, is a voluntary agreement amongst stakeholders to reduce food wastage by 50% by 2030. Although there may be different approaches to encouraging food donation, many local businesses prefer legislation that reduces their fear of liability and reputation damage, while helping to balance their corporate social responsibility with any potential legal obligations.

As we move forward, it is thus essential to ensure that the implementation of the Bill can effectively address the concerns raised by potential food donors while ensuring food safety for the recipients. Hence, I would like to seek clarifications on the administration, imposition of penalties, if any, in serious incidents of breaches and possible mediation process for conditions outlined in section 4 of the Bill.

The Bill provides a waiver of criminal and civil liability for donors of food, under four key conditions. Specifically, donors will be protected from liability for any death or personal injury resulting from the consumption of donated food, provided that: one, the food was safe and suitable at the time it left the donor's possession; two, the recipient was informed of any specific handling requirements that is required to ensure that the food remained safe and suitable for consumption after it left the donor’s possession; three, the recipient was informed of any time limits for the food's safety; and lastly, the donor complied with all food safety and hygiene laws.

It is essential to establish a clear oversight mechanism to ensure that donors adhere to the safety and hygiene protocols required by the Bill. As such, I hope to understand how the conditions under section 4 will be administered and monitored to ensure compliance by all stakeholders involved. Will MSE be looking at any specific statutory board, such as SFA, to be responsible for ensuring that the four conditions are met for the liability to be waived? Additionally, will MSE be the authority to revoke the waiver of liability if breaches, serious breaches occur? And will the investigation process into serious breaches be conducted similarly to the process for contamination and gastroenteritis incidents?

I also hope that MSE can work with stakeholders to provide training and guidance to potential food donors to help them understand and comply with the requirements of the Bill. This will also foster a culture of responsibility and encourage ethical behaviour among potential food donors.

Secondly, even though the Bill’s main intention is to address the fear of liabilities that prevent food businesses from donating their unsold food. I hope the Bill can also address potential penalties if any of the conditions stated in section 4 is seriously breached to safeguard the public who are potential recipients, especially if they are the vulnerable communities.

I would thus like to ask if the Government has considered any potential penalties for the donors if any conditions set in section 4 have been seriously breached. And will this be a graduated scale of penalties based on the severity of the breach, ranging from minor infractions to serious violations to give assurance to potential food donors?

Finally, I believe that establishing a clear and accessible mediation mechanism will be crucial in resolving conflicts efficiently and fairly.

As such, I would like to also clarify if there will be mediation or resolution processes made available to both donors and recipients to address any grievances or misunderstandings arising from possible disputes. I hope that the Government can consider providing a mediating channel that is reliable for all donors and recipients to address any issues that may arise.

Additionally, for small-scale donors who may not have the resources to navigate complex legal disputes, will the Government provide support mechanisms to assist them? Providing such support for smaller donors will encourage broader participation in food donation efforts, ensuring that even the smallest contributions can make a difference.

Mr Speaker, as I conclude, I would like to emphasise the significance of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill in helping to solve the country’s food waste problem while mitigating the fear of liability and encouraging more potential donors to step forward. This will help to foster a more giving and compassionate community in the long term.

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Parliamentary colleagues – Mr Louis Ng, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia – for their hard work and efforts in bringing this Bill to fruition today. Their dedication and hard work in engaging with relevant stakeholders have been instrumental in shaping this piece of legislation.

I hope that the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will become a pillar to sustain our collective work towards reducing food wastage, supporting food-insecure communities and fostering a culture of generosity and responsibility.

Notwithstanding my clarifications raised, I support the Bill.

Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to declare that I own and operate a food waste recycling company. Through my professional experience, I have witnessed first-hand the shocking amount of perfectly edible food that is discarded into recycling bins. This has reinforced my firm belief that edible food should be redistributed, not recycled.

Therefore, I fully support this Bill put forth by the hon Member Louis Ng as it will enable more effective redistribution of edible food. It has been a real privilege to be part of this discussion along with Parliamentary colleagues, Ms Poh Li San and Ms Hany Soh at the onset. I would like to thank all the workgroup members for assisting in drafting this Bill.

In this speech, I will share the various opportunities that this Bill gives rise to. These opportunities support our nation's efforts to combat food waste and enhance the support for our food-insecure communities.

Firstly, by protecting food donors from liability for any harm that may arise from the consumption of donated food, under specific conditions, the amount of food that would be donated is expected to rise. This bodes well for any type of operation as economies of scale are key.

The increase in food sources enables non-profit organisations and social enterprises to achieve the required scale to optimise operations and logistics. With more food available, food caring organisaions (FCOs) can optimise their processes. They can better match the food with appropriate recipients and plan logistics more effectively. Also, with greater food volume, organisations can recover their investments in better infrastructure, such as transportation and storage, improving their overall efficiency.

The increase in food sources will also optimise the matching of donors' and donees' preferences. When businesses, restaurants and individuals donate more surplus food, it increases the potential diversity of food available for redistribution. This helps organisations have a more consistent and diverse supply to redistribute to those in need.

Combined with digital solutions, the increase in scale can also spark innovations in redistribution methods, such as using technology to track and manage food donations more effectively.

In the US, Olio is a food-sharing app that connects neighbours and local businesses with excess food to those nearby who can use it. Such hyperlocal innovations have the potential to enhance community bonds too.

Another area of opportunity is the issuance of a quality mark that ensures food is safely and effectively redistributed to those in need. Such certifications and standards typically focus on food safety, operational standards and efficiency. There are a few notable examples.

First, ISO 22000, an international standard that specifies requirements for a food safety management system to ensure that food is safe for consumption. Organisations involved in food rescue and redistribution can obtain this certification to demonstrate their commitment to food safety.

Second, Feeding America's "Certified Member Food Banks". Feeding America has its own set of standards and guidelines for member food banks. Certified members must meet rigorous criteria for food safety, handling and distribution practices.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in creating a quality mark for the redistribution of food, food caring organisations benefit in several ways: one, ensure consistency in food safety and quality; two, build trust and credibility with donees; three, improve efficiency as processes are streamlined and staff and volunteers are provided stipulated training; four, facilitate partnerships and funding as partnership organisations and funding organisations look for evidence of quality and reliability when partnering or awarding funds; and five, support continuous improvements and monitoring as quality marks offer valuable feedback for ongoing improvements and adjustments.

For food caring organisations to harness the opportunities presented in this Bill, we need to enable them to take strategic and impactful steps. There are three ways we can do so.

Firstly, we must enable food caring organisations to pursue quality mark accreditation. To facilitate this, I propose that the Government provide grants to cover costs associated with adopting these standards and conducting necessary training. Furthermore, Enterprise Singapore's Quality and Standards division should consider developing a standard specifically tailored to our local context, ensuring it meets the unique needs of our community.

Secondly, FCOs need to address the challenge of logistics. While investing in additional refrigerated vehicles is one option, it may not always be the most efficient and can also contribute to traffic congestion. Instead, I recommend we focus on creating hyperlocal partnerships and community-based redistribution networks.

The Community Development Councils (CDCs), organised by districts, are ideally positioned to enable this. The CDCs could serve as the key node to enable FCOs to operate a hyperlocal hub and spokes redistribution. Within these hubs, several cold storage facilities can be added to extend the shelf life of perishable items. By collaborating with FCOs within the CDC districts, the CDCs can enhance existing support to resource low-income families.

This suggestion is built upon our existing weekly food rescue initiative that we have started in Zhenghua. Launched in September 2022, we have rescued approximately 7,600 kilogrammes of food and redistributed it to the residents of Zhenghua. We collaborated with local supermarkets and wholesalers to gather all unsold food items, which are transported to Zhenghua, where it is distributed among residents.

It is important to note that we have framed this as a Zhenghua green initiative, where all are welcome to collect the rescued food. In this way, we mobilise all in our community to do our part to reduce food waste.

Our on-ground experience shows how hyperlocal initiatives can successfully mobilise volunteers and consistently provided food to the community. This approach reduces logistical cost by keeping food redistribution hyperlocal, ensuring food reaches those in need quickly and efficiently. Furthermore, it enhances community resilience and promotes sustainability by fostering a strong network of support within the neighbourhood.

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, an exciting opportunity arises for food caring organisations in Singapore to issue carbon credits by redistributing food. By aligning with international methodologies that quantify greenhouse gas emission reductions, these organisations can not only contribute to environmental sustainability but also generate revenue through carbon credits. The revenue generated can support FCOs in their recovery of logistical costs.

This initiative presents a dual benefit – reducing food waste and contributing to our nation's carbon reduction goals. To fully harness this potential, I recommend supporting FCOs in adopting digital solutions to effectively track the amount of food waste redistributed. Such technologies will enhance transparency and accuracy in measuring their impact, enabling these organisations to capitalise on carbon credits. This potential further amplifies the impact of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, fostering a more sustainable and responsible approach to food management in our society.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill offers transformative opportunities for addressing food waste and enhancing support for food-insecure communities.

To fully leverage these benefits, we should: one, support food caring organisations with grants for quality mark accreditation and Enterprise Singapore's Quality and Standards division should consider developing a standard specifically tailored to our local context; two, focus on hyperlocal partnerships and community-based redistribution networks, utilising the CDCs to enable hub and spoke operations; and three, support FCOs to adopt digital solutions to effectively track the amount of food waste redistributed. Such technologies will enhance transparency and accuracy in measuring their impact, enabling these organisations to capitalise on carbon credits.

These steps will maximise the Bill's impact, ensuring a more effective and sustainable approach to food waste and community support.

Ms Poh Li San.

Singapore is a food paradise filled with eateries and restaurants at every corner of our country. However, many of us are unaware of what happens to food that is unsold and how much food is wasted.

An elephant can weigh up to six tonnes. The food waste produced in 2023 was a staggering 755,000 tonnes. That is a gradual increase from 744,000 tonnes in 2019.

Here are some facts: one, while food prices are increasing consistently, the options for affordable food supplies for low-income families are still very limited; two, even though SFA has been working hard to meet the "30 by 30" national nutritional goal, a huge quantity of edible food is being thrown away daily; three, 11% of total waste collected in Singapore is food waste and this percentage can be reduced; four, we have a shortage of waste collection workers.

We need to ask ourselves why are we throwing away so much food when they can be channelled to feed our under-privileged groups? This food paradox arises because food is perishable, expensive to store and transport and food that does not look fresh is hard to sell or may even cause health issues.

It is not disputed that it is cheaper, more convenient and less risky for food suppliers and restaurants to simply throw away unsold and unconsumed food rather than to donate them. This practice is especially so for well-known food establishments. It is just not worth the risk of damaging an established food company's reputation should the quality and safety of the unconsumed food be compromised in the course of collection and distribution.

As Singaporeans become more affluent, many people tend to take a nonchalant and risk-averse attitude when it comes to wasting food. However, as a small and resource-scarce nation, we must stop the following from increasing – food waste, food costs, food insecurity, manpower needs and carbon footprint.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will be a good solution. This legislative amendment can be a significant game-changer in the management of under-utilised food resources and waste reduction while helping low-income families cope with rising food expenses and assisting them in monitoring their nutrition intake.

Presently, there are already several volunteer groups addressing the collection of unconsumed food and redistributing them to various communities. Just to name a few, the Food Bank rescues more than 800,000 kilogrammes of food annually. Food from the Heart will collect unsold bread, while Food Rescue Sengkang picks up vegetables and fruits from wholesale markets and food donors.

These rescued food items are mostly limited to those that are easier to transport, store, distribute and safe to mark as consumables. There are still plenty of untapped opportunities to rescue unconsumed high-quality foods from restaurants, hotel buffets, supermarkets and so on.

If sufficient protection from liability or even benefits are provided for the donation of unconsumed food, more food donors and distribution groups will come onboard. Such collaboration efforts can potentially create solutions for more ground-up initiatives and attract various communities to work together to reduce food waste and to do good. We can turn a vicious circle of waste into a virtuous circle of good deeds.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is a good solution. But needless to say, a lot more needs to be done in order to reduce significant amounts of food waste and to redistribute edible foods to the under-privileged communities in Singapore. The logistics is viable because Singapore is small with good transport accessibility to reach anywhere in a short time.

We need to create awareness of the Good Samaritan Food Bill and hopefully promote an enhanced liability protection extended to food donors. We have to encourage lighthouse partners such as the Restaurant Association of Singapore, Singapore Hotel Association and major supermarket chains such as FairPrice and Cold Storage to come onboard as examples for other food suppliers and operators.

We will need to increase the number of volunteers in various localities across Singapore to assist with the collection and distribution roles. Key food collection points, donation drop-off nodes and distribution points must be established in various zones across Singapore. Volunteer drivers of large vehicles could then ply between the collection nodes and the distribution points while volunteer distributors could help with sorting, cleaning, repacking and distributing the donated foods to beneficiaries. It is also important for the distribution points to be located at convenient and accessible locations for the beneficiaries. The Singapore Armed Forces can also consider activating some National Servicemen to be involved in this process.

We have to identify and reach out to more potential beneficiaries who are open to receive donated food and as much as possible, provide fresh and healthy foods. We also need to help these beneficiaries develop healthy eating habits, especially for growing children. It would be good for the local Social Service Offices and Family Services Centres work with and to support food donation groups in order to achieve more targeted outreach to low-income families that would benefit from regular food distribution. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now share my suggestions in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The purpose of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is to encourage food donations by providing liability protection for donors, so as to help more families and people in need and reduce waste and burden on the environment. We need to take the following steps to expand donation efforts and deliver donated food to more beneficiaries.

We need to raise awareness of the Bill and promote enhanced liability protection for food donors.

We must encourage large partners to participate, such as the Singapore Food and Beverage Industry Association, the Singapore Hotel Association and large supermarket chains, such as NTUC FairPrice and Cold Storage, to set an example for other food suppliers and operators.

We need to increase volunteers in various districts, including volunteer drivers of large vehicles, to assist in the collection, delivery and distribution of donated food. The Singapore Armed Forces could consider mobilising some National Servicemen to participate in this process. Collaboration between the community and the Family Service Centres and food rescue organisations is important to reach more low-income families in a targeted way who would benefit from regular food distribution.

(In English): I am very eager for the passing of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill as this will help scale up our food rescue and distribution efforts in Singapore. Our residents and volunteers in Sembawang West will also get to benefit more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to share our Food Rescue experience in Sembawang West. Five years ago, my PAP Sembawang West Branch volunteers and I started our "Colourful Food, Vibrant Life" fruits and vegetables distribution programme. We distributed free fruits and vegetables once a month to our residents staying at our rental block, as well as the 2-room and 3-room blocks. Apart from a few months during the COVID-19 pandemic, when we had to pause the programme, unfortunately, this programme has brought much joy to both volunteers and beneficiaries.

Our key partner, Sengkang Food Rescue will collect multiple truckloads of unwanted fruits and vegetables from the Pasir Panjang Wholesale markets and from other food donors and store them at their Fernvale facility. There are approximately 20 to 40 pallets collected each Saturday.

Thereafter, my branch volunteers will collect one truckload of fruits and vegetables from Fernvale and transport them to Sembawang West rental block. My volunteers will unload, sort, clean and display the food items at the void deck of the rental block. Typically, between 80 and 100 families will come by to collect the produce. Some of them will collect on behalf of their neighbours who may be out or unwell.

We started with the intention of reducing food waste, encouraging low-income families to eat more nutritious greens and also helping them reduce their food expenditures.

Over time, we got to know the residents better and we forged friendships with them through our chit-chats while they wait in the queue. Even though they may not be well-endowed or well-educated, many of these residents are very hardworking, warm and down-to-earth. They are very appreciative of our efforts and we often get warm hugs whenever they see us. There are many unexpected beautiful blessings and thank you notes from these distribution sessions are very much appreciated by our volunteers.

During the process, our volunteers, especially the youths, have the opportunity to learn about how we can help under-privileged living in our midst. It is a great eye-opener that brings valuable life education and experiences to these volunteers. In helping senior residents carry their bags of fruits and vegetables to their humble homes, the youths learn to appreciate how fortunate and well-endowed they themselves are.

There is a lot of good done whenever our branch volunteers collaborates with other community or corporate social responsibility groups who have come forward to contribute as well. Besides Sengkang Food Rescue, Sembawang Town Council, companies like TreeDots and Saint Gobain and volunteer groups like Smile!SG and MAD, have joined forces with Sembawang West Branch, to donate household necessities like toys, books, frozen foods, pillows and more, to augment the fruits and vegetables. Especially during festive periods, the additional donation items indeed bring lots of joy and relief to residents who are not able to afford such basic pleasures.

Recently, our volunteers even started additional services, by roping in hairstylists to provide free haircuts for residents who turn up for the food distribution. Residents will not only eat healthily but also look better and feel more comfortable. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will like to share our takeaways in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We started the "food distribution" initiative with the intention of reducing food waste, encouraging low-income families to eat more nutritious meals, and also helping them reduce expenses on food.

Over time, we had the opportunity to get to know the residents better and we developed friendships by chatting with them while they wait in queue. Even though they may not be affluent or well-educated, many of these residents are very hardworking, warm and down-to-earth. They are very appreciative of our efforts and greet us warmly whenever we meet. We receive many blessings and truly appreciate the thank-you notes that were given to us from these distribution sessions.

Throughout this process, our volunteers, especially the youths, have the opportunity to learn about how we can help the under-privileged living in our midst. It is a great eye-opener that brings a lot of meaning and real-life experiences to these volunteers, including helping senior residents carry their bags of fruits and vegetables to their humble homes, which helps the volunteers learn to appreciate how fortunate they themselves are.

There is a lot of good done whenever our branch volunteers work with other community or corporate social responsibility groups who have come forward to contribute as well. Besides Sengkang Food Rescue and Sembawang Town Council, companies like TreeDots and Saint Gobain, Smile!SG and MAD, have joined forces with Sembawang West Branch, to donate household items like toys, books, frozen food, pillows, fruits and vegetables. During festive periods especially, this additional donation brings lots of joy and relief to residents who are not able to afford such basic pleasures.

Recently, our volunteers started additional services, by roping in hairstylists to provide free haircuts for residents who turn up for the food distribution. Residents will not only eat healthily but also look better and feel more comfortable.

(In English): Thanks to the "Colourful Foods, Vibrant Life" programme, my Branch volunteers have forged a stronger camaraderie. Though it is hard work, we are always happy to be there for fellow Singaporeans who are less privileged in life. Everyone looks forward to the third Saturday of the month and we are passionate about helping our residents.

Hence, with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, I hope more food donors and Samaritans will come forward to contribute. With the additional support, programmes like Sembawang West's food distribution programme can be replicated in other localities and to many more towns in Singapore.

Finally, I would conclude with my sincere thanks to the leadership of fellow Member, Mr Louis Ng and his legal assistant, Ms Charmaine Yap, and many more Samaritans in the committee who have contributed in the drafting of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, over the past four years.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will assist in the reduction of food waste, help low-income families, inspire stronger volunteerism amongst more Singaporeans and make us a more caring society. Let us all turn a vicious circle of food waste into a virtuous circle of good deeds! Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

Mr Speaker, I would first like to thank Mr Louis Ng and his team for tabling the Private Member's Bill and for bringing this important issue to the fore.

In my speech, I will touch on three areas: one, how the work of food charities in Singapore fits with our social compact; two, how the Bill will support their work; and finally, how, as a society, we can join hands across Government, community and businesses to support more intentional giving.

Food support organisations play an important role in our society. They are a positive model of how community partners with families and the Government and exemplify our "many helping hands" approach.

In Singapore, we encourage self-reliance and family support. Individuals do their best for themselves and their families and families provide the first line of support.

The next layer of support is a caring community, comprising neighbours, community organisations and other partners, including corporates. Members of the community, like our food support organisations, contribute their time, resources and expertise and help create opportunities for those they help.

The Government helps to create conditions and opportunities for Singaporeans to provide a better life for themselves and their loved ones. On occasion, some families fall on hard times for a variety of reasons and the Government steps in to provide support, in essence, provide a social safety net to help them regain stability and self-reliance.

Thus, food charities do not work alone, but alongside many others who seek to help individuals and families in need.

There are many food charities in Singapore. Together, they provide a wide range of food support, such as cooking and delivering hot meals, distributing dry rations, setting up community shops, as well as providing digital credits that allow beneficiaries to select the food that best meets their dietary requirements.

Food charities complement the Government's support, by offering additional aid and expanding the range of choices for families in need. Their efforts go a long way in helping to alleviate the burdens of these families.

Not many people see their work. They are often unsung heroes, operating behind the scenes. Many food charities and their dedicated volunteers work tirelessly around the clock, including at night and in the wee hours of the morning. They collect donated food, prepare and repack them for their beneficiaries and help prepare cooked meals. Many also work closely with social services to identify needy families and make plans for supporting them, in line with their needs.

I have had the privilege of leading the Charity Food Workgroup, or CFWG, over the past four years. The CFWG was first formed in 2019 and today comprises 15 private and public stakeholders, such as food charities, Government organisations and corporate partners.

Our goal is to bring partners within the food donation ecosystem together so that we can harness our collective strengths to practise "good giving and giving right". We have done this by: (a) helping those in need identify and receive food support; (b) reducing duplication of food support and reducing food wastage through better coordination; and (c) encouraging better giving through a shared emphasis on providing food support that meets beneficiaries' dietary needs and in a way that gives beneficiaries greater choice and dignity.

The CFWG's work is beneficiary-centric and largely driven by the food charities which are the key enablers of these efforts. The workgroup has also risen to the occasion during difficult times. During the circuit breaker, the work of many food charities was disrupted, with many unable to operate. Recognising that there was higher demand for food support then, CFWG members rallied together and developed a central repository of food support beneficiaries' data. This enabled charities that were still able to operate to take over to provide support to those who needed help.

Today, that initiative has led to the establishment of a FoodConnect Database. Launched in 2022, the FoodConnect database provides food charities with a consolidated view of food support received by a household, thus facilitating better coordination and avoiding duplication. And we continue to encourage more food charities to come on board the database.

We have also launched a FoodConnect Directory that enables families to access food charities according to where they live and their dietary requirements. This has helped families more easily find food support that best meets their needs. The Directory has become more comprehensive over time. Today, it includes food charities offering halal, non-halal and vegetarian food support options in all service regions in Singapore.

The introduction of the Good Samaritan Food Donation, or GSFD Bill is a significant step forward to bolster efforts in the food support space. The Bill reflects the collective efforts of stakeholders in the food donation space who have come together to think about how to incentivise food donation and reduce food wastage in Singapore.

We welcome the protections conferred by the Bill, as more donors can confidently participate in food donation and less food will go to waste. Through our food charities and food support organisations stepping in to organise these donations, more food can be given to those in need. And organisations can also benefit from the assurance that there are legislative protections in place, as they carry out their work. I hope that, collectively, these measures will help encourage greater community giving while, at the same time, reducing food wastage. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) supports the spirit of the Bill.

With the GSFD Bill, we can look forward to an increase in the quantity and variety of donated food, as more businesses and individuals are encouraged to donate. My hope is that this will lead to greater choice and dignity for beneficiaries of food support, who will be better placed to get food support that best meets their needs and preferences.

With this Bill, I encourage food donors who are considering stepping forward to also work with food charities to understand the needs of food support recipients and donate in ways that provide greater choice, including healthier food options. We also encourage donors and food charities to work with CFWG and, together, we can address the community's needs more effectively.

Mr Speaker, in my past four years of involvement in this space, I have had the distinct privilege of seeing first-hand how giving has evolved over time. For our beneficiaries to have the option of choice is not simply or merely about preferences. I have a four-year-old boy at home, so, I know for young children, having a choice over food options not only helps them feel like they have some control over their lives, but learning to decide is also a key part of growing up. And yet, for others, being able to choose the food that they eat comes from a position of need. For diabetic patients, for instance, white rice and sugar, items that are often found in standard ration packs, would be of little help for them.

And that is why I have been so deeply inspired by the many big hearts that have been involved in this space, working hard to evolve our giving models, so that we do not just give but, more importantly, give better. And for that, I salute all who have been, and will continue, to be hard at work in our food charities. Sir, I support the Bill.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng.

Sir, MSE supports food waste reduction, whilst ensuring supply of safe food for Singapore.

Reducing food waste helps us realise our vision of a zero-waste nation. The total amount of food waste generated in Singapore in 2023 was 755,000 tonnes, which accounted for about 11% of the total waste generated in Singapore. We support the GSFD Bill as we believe it will help reduce food waste by facilitating the donation of surplus food to beneficiaries.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about my Ministry's broader goals in managing food waste. Mr Speaker, food waste is a priority waste stream under the Zero Waste Masterplan and we have implemented a range of efforts under the Masterplan. We have set out regulatory measures in the Resource Sustainability Act that progressively require, from 2024, large commercial and industrial food waste generators to segregate food waste for treatment or conversion into useful products and to submit annual food waste reports. Concurrently, we are building up our food waste treatment capacity through the construction of the upcoming Food Waste Treatment Facility, which will produce biogas and boost electricity generation.

The preferred way to manage food waste is to avoid food production in excess of consumption at the onset. We encourage all food establishments, including manufacturers, caterers and retailers, to review processes and practices, to reduce the incidence of excessive food production upstream. Stakeholders may consult the food waste minimisation guidebooks available on the NEA and SFA websites. Where there is unsold or excess food, we support food donation as a possible avenue to reduce wastage.

The GSFD Bill thus complements existing efforts to reduce food waste by facilitating food donation which would then avoid the need for food waste treatment and its associated operational costs. Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Jean See, Miss Rachel Ong and Ms Joan Pereira suggested further measures to encourage food waste reduction through food donations. We thank the Members for their suggestions and will study them further together with MSF as they continue to look at ways to strengthen efforts in the food support space.

As we facilitate and support measures that reduce food waste, we must also ensure that the donated food is safe and suitable for our consumption. Mr Don Wee and Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about food safety risks and the importance of ensuring that donors with ill intentions do not misuse the protection accorded by the GSFD Bill. The Bill aligns with MSE and SFA's approach to assure food safety and strikes a balance of roles and responsibilities among various parties. It makes clear that the safety of donated food is a joint responsibility of the Government, food donors, intermediaries, such food distribution organisations, and consumers.

MSE and SFA are responsible for establishing the regulatory framework for food safety and providing an enabling environment for the food industry. Mr Don Wee, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia mentioned the need for clear guidelines and standards to guide food donors. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about how we could ensure that food donors are well-informed and fully compliant with existing food safety and hygiene regulations. Since 2021, SFA has published a set of guidelines for food safety practices during the preparation, delivery, storage and distribution of food for charitable causes. These guidelines are refreshed periodically to ensure their continued relevance to food donors and food distribution organisations, and they are available online.

Mr Don Wee, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Zhulkarnain and Ms Ng Ling Ling also mentioned other measures to ensure that food donors maintain proper food safety standards, such as the need for training of staff and volunteers, maintaining records for accountability and tracing, and regular inspections. These are good food safety practices which SFA will continue to raise awareness of and educate the food industry, food distribution organisations and consumers on. Where feedback is received and preliminary checks suggest food safety lapses, SFA will also utilise its levers, including inspection, sampling and testing, to investigate and take action.

Food donors and food distribution organisations continue to have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the food they are donating or distributing. For example, premises and equipment for food preparation and distribution should be kept clean and well-maintained, and employees and volunteers handling the food should adopt good hygiene practices. Recipients should also be advised by food donors and food distribution organisations on measures they could take to ensure food safety, such as checking the condition of food upon receipt and consuming it within the recommended timeline.

To this end, MSE and SFA support the inclusion of the four conditions in the GSFD Bill that food donors must comply with, before the protection from criminal and civil liability can apply. First, the food should not have been unsafe and not unsuitable at the time it left possession and control of the food donor. Second, the food donor should have informed the recipient of any food handling requirements to ensure that the donated food remained safe and suitable. Third, the food donor should have informed the recipient of any time beyond which the food would no longer have remained safe and suitable. Last, the food donor should have taken all reasonably practicable measures to comply with any applicable requirement under any written law related to food safety and hygiene when handling the food to be donated.

These conditions provide clarity to donors on the requirements that they should meet in order to be eligible for protection from any criminal or civil liability arising from food safety incidents. To address Ms Ng Ling Ling's query on whether MSE would be the authority to revoke the waiver of liability if food safety breaches occur, the Bill does not warrant the need for revocation of waiver as food donors would automatically forfeit their protection under the Bill if they failed to meet any of the four conditions. The conditions thus provide assurance to food donation recipients that donors would have taken necessary measures to safeguard the safety of the food they provide.

Recipients of donated food also have a part to play to ensure food safety. They should exercise due diligence and take responsibility in noting the information provided by donors or food distribution organisations so that the donated food remains safe and suitable to consume.

While the Bill facilitates food donation, it does not impede SFA's responsibilities as a regulator or its ability to investigate food safety lapses and take action against non-compliance with food safety directions.

Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Ng Ling Ling asked about MSE and SFA's enforcement and investigation processes. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also enquired on what would happen when donors do not follow safety guidelines.

In the event of food safety incidents, SFA will continue to conduct investigations to determine the facts of the case and take appropriate measures to manage the risk to food donation recipients. The Director General (Food Administration) can issue directions to suspend food donation or distribution activities until appropriate rectification has been done.

Miss Rachel Ong asked whether intermediary food rescue groups would be held liable if food was found to be unsuitable and unsafe. The Bill covers all food donors, including food distribution organisations such as food charities, which distribute food donated by others for charitable purpose. If the donor or food distribution organisation is found to have donated or distributed unsafe or unsuitable food or did not take reasonable measures to ensure food safety, they would not be protected from liability under the GSFD Bill as they would have failed to meet the conditions stipulated in the Bill. SFA will continue to be judicious in its investigations and will only take action against the errant party.

For example, if a food distribution organisation had done its due diligence to ensure the food was safe and suitable when it left its possession, but unknowingly passed on erroneous information from the food donor, the donor would be held responsible while the food distribution organisation will continue to enjoy the protection under the Bill.

To better assure food safety in food donation activities, MSE and SFA will be strengthening SFA's regulatory powers through the upcoming Food Safety and Security Bill (FSSB).

As announced earlier this year, the FSSB will bring together food safety and security legislation from eight existing Acts into one single Act and provide an overarching framework to ensure coherence across the entire food value chain. We are currently engaging and consulting relevant stakeholders on FSSB. Given that similar food safety risks exist in both sale and donation of food, we intend to extend food safety requirements in the FSSB to cover food donation and distribution activities beyond the sale of food.

For example, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and Mr Yip Hon Weng spoke about the importance of clear and accurate labels on donated food, containing information such as the presence of cooked food and allergens. These are current requirements for food that is sold, which we are looking to extend to all food, whether sold or donated, under the FSSB.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will complement the upcoming FSSB by requiring food donors and food distribution organisations to comply with prevailing food safety requirements before protection from criminal and civil liability can apply.

To conclude, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill will help encourage donation of surplus food and contribute to reducing food waste. Importantly, this will be conducted in a manner that does not compromise food safety and consumer health. It also provides assurance to food donation recipients that reasonable measures have been taken to ensure food safety.

On that note, my Ministry and I support the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their strong support for the Bill as well as their comments and very useful suggestions. This might be the shortest Bill with the most number of speakers – 17 Members spoke on our eight-page Bill.

One of our main aims was not just to pass legislation to waive liability for food donations but to shine a spotlight on this very important issue which is seldom debated in this House. I am glad to say we have achieved this through the debate we had over the past two days.

Allow me some time to now address key points and questions Members have raised. I will also address some of the key concerns that were raised to the Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee through our consultations with stakeholders and members of the public. I will also explain why some suggestions raised to the Committee have not been incorporated into the Bill.

Ultimately, the purpose of the Bill is to encourage food donation to address food wastage and food insecurity by waiving liability.

As Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng just shared, food waste reduction helps us to realise our vision of a zero-waste nation. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua also shared that this Bill embodies the spirit of a caring society.

I should stress that more importantly, the waiver of liability is just one piece of the broader food donation ecosystem. There are many other things we can, should and must do to encourage food donation beyond this Bill. This Bill is just a starting point.

With these goals in mind, I will provide some clarification on the Bill. Members have raised several issues and I have grouped this reply into six areas of concern: one, the unintended and opposite effect of the Bill; two, who is covered under the Bill; three, meeting the four conditions; four, support and help for food donors; five, support and help for recipients; and six, public education and partnerships

Let me start by addressing one of the most common feedback we have received. The elephant in the room is whether this Bill might have the unintended and opposite effect of chilling food donation. We have worked hard to avoid this. This is a big elephant and as we learnt from Ms Poh Li San today, an elephant can weigh up to six tonnes.

There were concerns about whether this Bill will make some food donation activities illegal or whether existing food donors will be dissuaded because compliance with the four conditions is too difficult. Let me stress again that this is not the intention of the Bill. The Bill should not make it more onerous for donors to donate food. What it does is to strike a balance between encouraging food donation and at the same time, safeguarding food safety and hygiene standards. It is about striking the balance between responsibility and philanthropy that Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim so rightly said.

We aim to inspire more food donations and we are confident of achieving this through this Bill without compromising food safety and hygiene standards. As Ms Jean See shared, the well-being of recipients of donated food is priority.

Next, who is covered under the Bill? The Committee intended for the definition of a food donor to be as broad as possible to cover as many food donation activities as possible. For this reason, the Bill does not differentiate between an individual, a community food rescue group, a religious organisation, a business or a registered food charity.

NTUC FairPrice asked to clarify if a co-operative society is included in the definition of an "entity". Let me assure FairPrice that the definition of an "entity" is broad enough to cover a co-operative society.

Members of the public and Members here, including Mr Yip Hon Weng and Miss Rachel Ong, asked about the donation of food past the "expiry", "best before" and "use by" dates. The donation of food past the "expiry", "best before" and "use by" dates will not be covered under this Bill. The Committee debated this issue extensively but ultimately, one is not allowed to sell food past the "expiry", "best before" and "use by" dates. Taking that into account, we should not waive liability when one donates the same food. If it is illegal for sale, the Committee felt it would not be appropriate for donation of the same food to be protected from liability.

I should add that Singapore currently takes a relatively simple approach where "expiry", "best before", "use by" and all other dates are treated the same. I do note that there is room to debate this issue further, especially for the "best before" date. I understand MSE is studying this issue further and I eagerly await an update.

Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for greater clarity on the Bill's stance on community fridges and food rescue initiatives and whether the Bill extends liability protection to them. This was also raised at the second public consultation by Ms Robin, a zero waste advocate.

The Bill does not rule out waiver of liability for community fridges and food rescue initiatives, assuming that the four conditions are met. That said, the Committee acknowledges that it may be more difficult for donors or groups involved in community fridges to meet the four conditions since there might not be any direct communication or even face-to-face meetings between the donor and recipient. For community fridges, there are times we might not even know who the food donor is.

Food rescue initiatives, on the other hand, can more easily meet the four conditions. For the past few years, we have a monthly food rescue initiative in Nee Soon East. I have spoken to the team managing the food rescue and we are confident we can meet the four conditions.

Next, during the first public consultation, the Committee surveyed the public on exempting logistics providers from liability. The proposal received strong public support, with around three-quarters of respondents agreeing that logistics providers should enjoy protection from civil and criminal liability.

The Committee ultimately decided to take an incremental approach and waive liability only for food donors for now and not logistics providers. However, if our initial legislative efforts are successful in encouraging food donation, future amendments to expand the law to cover logistics providers is a possibility.

Next, on the definition of food donation, the Committee wanted to ensure that the focus of the Bill remains on charitable giving. To be considered a donation, the food must be given without payment to the donor. This includes any nominal sum or logistics fee. If in exchange for the food donation, the donor receives non-monetary benefits, such as publicity, the food given will still be considered a food donation.

Miss Rachel Ong asked if the Bill covers donors who receive monetary donations from the public who collect donated food. If the monetary donation is provided from members of the public and not the recipient of the food, the food donation still enjoys liability protection under the Bill. However, if the recipient is the one providing the monetary donation, this is akin to a pay-as-you-wish arrangement, which will not be protected under the Bill.

The Committee wanted to draw a very clear line on situations where the Bill applies as the focus of this Bill is on food donation for a charitable, benevolent and philanthropic purpose. I should also point out that where food donation is to needy families, it is fairly unlikely that the recipients will be asked to pay for the food.

NTUC FairPrice also raised a hypothetical situation of a supermarket paying a food surplus management company to redistribute the donated food to the community. The donation in this scenario will still enjoy liability protections. This is because no payment is received by the supermarket for the food given.

Next, Mr Keith Chua asked how the Committee determined that absolving donors of liability will increase the food available for donation. He also asked about the identity of potential donors who are currently reluctant to donate.

The Committee consulted extensively with restaurants, hotels, social enterprises, primary food producers, food processing companies, distributors, wholesalers, food logistics, transport and delivery provider companies, supermarkets and merchants, bakeries and non-governmental organisations. These stakeholders shared their direct experiences on how liability concerns have a chilling effect on potential food donors, including hotels, restaurants, bakeries and supermarkets.

The survey conducted by the RAS on the Bill also support this, with 60% of respondents saying that they are very or somewhat likely to participate in food donation if this Bill is passed. This sentiment is echoed by Mr Dellen Soh from the RAS who shared that "Restaurants do want to donate excess food to reduce food waste and help our communities. But the very real risk of liability from donated food has a chilling effect for many restaurants."

Finally, on this section, Mr Zulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked whether the Bill covers the waiver of liability only in cases of death or personal injury from consuming the donated food. He asked whether illnesses or other physical harms are covered.

For the purposes of this Bill, personal injury includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition. This is similar to the definition adopted under the Civil Law Act, the Limitation Act and the Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act. As such, illnesses and physical harms are covered.

I will, now, move on to clarifications on the four conditions to enjoy liability protection. I thank Mr Vikram Nair for his view that the four conditions are both rigorous and reasonable. I also thank Ms Hazel Poa for sharing that these conditions are reasonable and should not pose an excessive impediment to food donors.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng spoke about how ensuring donated food is safe and suitable for consumption is a shared responsibility among Government, food donors, community organisations and recipients of food donations. I cannot emphasise enough how this must be a shared responsibility. I also cannot emphasise enough that food safety cannot be compromised. Food safety was a non-negotiable component in all our consultations and in drafting this Bill.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about how the Bill should not be misused by those with ill intentions. As Mr Gan Thiam Poh pointed out, a key challenge is ensuring that the liability protections are appropriately scoped. After much debate, the Committee came up with the four conditions that I have shared.

At the second public consultation, food donation groups asked how it will be determined whether food is unsafe and unsuitable. NTUC FairPrice, similarly, asked whether supermarkets can refer to established standards under food safety legislation to determine safety and suitability for consumption. The existing interpretations of whether food is unsafe and unsuitable, under section 2C and 2D of the Sale of Food Act, will apply in determining whether food is unsafe and unsuitable under this Bill.

For example, under section 2D of the Sale of Food Act, "food is deemed unsuitable if the food is damaged, deteriorated or perished to an extent that affects its reasonable intended use. Food is unsuitable if it has packaging that is damaged, deteriorated, perished or contaminated to the extent of affecting the food's reasonable intended use." Existing food safety legislation and case law on food safety will also apply.

Mr Keith Chua asked about when recipients might fall ill from consuming donated food, if the food was safe and suitable at the point of donation. Despite the best efforts of food donors to ensure that the donated food is safe and suitable, a recipient may still fall ill if the food was not properly handled, not properly stored and not consumed within the appropriate time.

During our consultation, one restaurant owner shared with us that some cleaners had packed leftover food from the restaurant to take home with them. The food had included delicacies, such as prawns. Seeing how good the food was, the recipient kept the food for the next day. The food likely went bad and the recipient suffered from food poisoning. After that incident, the restaurant did not dare to allow the leftover food to be packed and taken back.

Of course, in this situation, the restaurant would also have to inform the recipient of the handling requirements and the time limit for consumption and comply with all written laws on food safety and hygiene to enjoy protection from liability. However, this is a real story that shows how food that was safe and suitable at the time of donation, might still cause injury not through any fault of the donor.

Next, Assoc Prof James Lim referred to the four-hour rule under the NEA guidelines, which limit the consumption time of food from the time it is cooked. He asked whether the fourth condition, requiring a donor to comply with existing written law on food safety and hygiene, include this four-hour rule. I should clarify that the four-hour rule is not just an NEA guideline.

Regulation 13A of the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations prohibit caterers from selling or supplying food for consumption after four hours from when the food was first prepared. Breaching this regulation is an offence. The four-hour rule is a written law on food safety and hygiene and must be complied with to enjoy liability protection under this Bill.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also suggested that in addition to the four conditions, we should also require that food donors act in good faith in order to enjoy liability protection. The Committee had considered this suggestion. The Committee decided, that good faith would introduce too much uncertainty for food donors on when they will enjoy protection, when uncertainty from the risk of legal liability is the precise problem this Bill is trying to address.

As I shared, the survey by RAS found that 80% of surveyed restaurants were unsure whether the law will adequately protect businesses, even with the express waiver of liability. Including good faith as a requirement, while it sounds good and I understand where Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is coming from, we feel it might cause even greater concerns for businesses and undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve.

The Committee decided that four clear conditions that donors can fulfil, to know that they enjoy liability protection, will provide responsible donors with certainty and peace of mind that is very much needed.

Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for guidelines for donors to follow to prevent unintentional non-compliance with standards. He also suggested having resources to be made available on proper handling. Mr Don Wee and Ms Hany Soh also spoke about having guidelines, best practices and safety standards.

SFA has, in 2021, published the Guidelines for Social Service Agencies and community groups involved in food preparation and distribution activities for charitable causes. These guidelines would be relevant in considering if the four conditions for a waiver of liability have been met.

I urge SFA to expand these guidelines to also cover food donors, such as restaurants, hotels and bakeries. This will provide them with the much-needed guidance. I also urge organisations to familiarise themselves with these very good guidelines and strictly adhere to them. I hope SFA will also consider doing briefing sessions for food donors to ensure food donors understand the guidelines and clarify any doubts they have. SFA should also make these guidelines more easily accessible to the public.

As mentioned in my Second Reading speech, complying with these guidelines is one of the conditions to enjoy the waiver of liability. Before I end this section, I should address another point that Mr Keith Chua made about providing guidelines on what can and what cannot be donated. This should actually be included into the SFA guidelines as well. It is a good suggestion.

During our consultations with the hotels, some of the hotels actually mentioned that they already have these guidelines on what they will donate and what they will not donate. That could be a good starting point of including this current list into the existing SFA guidelines.

As another example, Food from the Heart also have guidelines on what bread they will accept for donation and what bread they would not accept. For example, bread with fillings would not be accepted by Food from the Heart. Again, we have a starting point in terms of developing guidelines on what can and cannot be donated.

Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim suggested that we consider mandating information labels on donated cooked food. NTUC FairPrice also asked about the role of packaging and labelling in meeting the conditions on communicating handling requirements and expiry date.

Properly packaging and labelling donated food are examples of how a donor can meet the conditions on communicating handling requirements and time limits for consuming donated food. There are other ways that a donor can communicate handling requirements and time limits to recipients. For instance, they can do so through text messages. We are mindful that mandating labelling might be too onerous for some small donors and we do not want this Bill to have the unintended effect of turning food donors away.

However, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Baey Yam Keng had just mentioned in his speech, I understand MSE is considering mandating labelling and I look forward to the Food Safety and Security Bill.

Lastly, on this section, Mr Don Wee suggested other methods for ensuring accountability, including maintaining records of donation, requiring reporting on food donation, regular audits and publication of donation data and impact reports. Mr Don Wee's suggestion on requiring reporting on food donation is a next step that the Government should seriously consider. The mandatory requirements on segregation and reporting of food waste came into effect this year for industrial and commercial buildings that generate large amount of food waste. As a further step, I hope the Government will look into food donation reporting requirements for these big players as well. It is a good suggestion from Mr Don Wee.

The Government should also look into the suggestion and ideas by Mr Edward Chia about using technology to track and manage food donation more effectively. Mr Edward Chia gave good examples, which follow on nicely from Mr Don Wee's suggestion. Apart from the four conditions, the Committee however decided against having some of the mandatory requirements Mr Don Wee raised as they might be a burden for some donors, especially the smaller ones.

We intended for these conditions to be reasonable to meet and not any more than what a food donor would already be expected to do before they donate food. As Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out, we need to take a balanced approach on this. However, the suggestions that members have raised are all good ideas that MSE, SFA and MSF should look into. I hope MSE, SFA and MSF will continue to engage the industry on how they can meet the four conditions and provide the support needed.

Next, I will talk about support and help for our food donors. I fully agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua that food charities augment the support provided by the Government. Food charities truly embody the spirit of the "many helping hands" approach that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua spoke about. They are our unsung heroes and I thank them for the work they do behind the scenes to ensure that families never go hungry or without nutritious food.

Businesses who donate food are equally important too and we should also support them. Ms Ng Ling Ling spoke about how businesses would like the help of legislation that reduces the fear of liability and reputational damage so that they can meet their societal responsibilities. I spoke to many businesses, including restaurants, hotels, bakeries, supermarkets and merchants. I can assure the public that food donation is not just a matter of checking off a corporate social responsibility obligation.

Many of the businesses I spoke with, see food donation as one way of giving back to the community. The liability protection is one way of helping these businesses and food charities do good. But as Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested, liability protection essentially removes a barrier but we must now provide active encouragement. Members have raised many good ideas for further incentivising and supporting food donation.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Jean See and Ms Hazel Poa suggested tax benefits for food donation. Mr Yip Hon Weng also suggested subsidies for logistical costs and Ms Hazel Poa suggested tax incentives for transport or platform companies who assist in providing food pick-up and delivery services for larger F&B enterprises.

Mr Yip Hon Weng raised examples of tech-enabled inventory management that receives substantial government support and recognition in Japan and Australia. These were suggestions that were commonly raised during our consultation. We heard from many businesses that some additional financial support from the Government could make it easier for them to donate food.

One possible avenue for support is to give subsidies or tax incentives for capital-heavy equipment, such as blast chillers. These chillers can be used to quickly freeze cooked food, extending its shelf life beyond the normal four-hour mark and making it easier to donate.

Many businesses are already doing this and what would help further is to incorporate guidelines on the use of blast chillers into the expanded SFA guidelines that I called for earlier. These guidelines will help provide some certainty to food donors. Businesses and food charities also shared with us that refrigerated trucks would be very useful for supporting food donations and hope to receive subsidies for purchasing these. All these suggestions will help food donors and, very importantly, help to ensure safer and more efficient handling of donated food.

Another suggestion raised, is tax deduction for donated food. As Mr Yip Hon Weng noted, this is currently being done in other countries, including the US and Italy. As Ms Jean See shared, this could help incentivise businesses to institutionalise food donation activities.

We studied these tax deduction suggestions. We put this through a public consultation as well and an overwhelming majority of the public supports this. However, there are currently challenges with accurately valuing food for the purpose of tax deduction and preventing any potential abuse. After exploring these options with the Ministry of Finance, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, MSF and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, the committee concluded that these financial incentives have to be studied further and can be considered for future implementation.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Don Wee and Ms Ng Ling Ling also raised other suggestions, including public recognition programmes for food donors and encouraging food donors to purchase liability insurance as an extra layer of protection. These, again, are all good suggestions. I hope the Government will continue to study the possibility of additional support that can be extended to food donors. The Charities Food Work Group that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua chairs, may be a good platform for these suggestions to be explored further.

For instance, while liability insurance may be difficult to mandate because it may not be feasible for smaller players. There is scope to explore this option for larger players. The Government can take steps to encourage liability insurance and monitor the take-up rate of such insurance.

Next, Mr Yip Hon Weng suggested mandatory training programmes or certification for frequent food donors. He suggested that SFA develop such programmes. Mr Don Wee, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Ms Ng Ling Ling and Ms Jean See, similarly, suggested training programmes. The Committee considered and consulted the public on requiring food charities to be certified, accredited and undergo training. While the proposal received significant public support, smaller food charities and community groups expressed concerns that the accreditation and training requirements may hamper their work.

Smaller groups shared that their volunteer pool may be individuals who volunteer on an ad hoc basis. These volunteers may be dissuaded if they have to undergo compulsory training. The groups also shared that they may not have the resources to meet the accreditation requirements.

After considerable debate – and it is a tough balancing act – the Committee decided that requiring accreditation to enjoy liability protections may again have the unintended effect of reducing food donations in Singapore.

That said, voluntary training and certification are steps that may be good for the Charities Food Work Group to explore further. The Government can also provide the much needed assistance on this.

Mr Edward Chia had shared about the importance of accreditation and suggested that the Government provide grants to cover costs associated with adopting these standards and conducting necessary training. His suggestion of Enterprise Singapore's Quality and Standards division developing a standard specifically tailored to our local context, ensuring it meets the unique needs of our community, should also be looked into.

As I mentioned earlier, a good start which can be done very soon would be for SFA to do a briefing session for food donors on the SFA guidelines. That would be a good starting point.

Lastly, on this section, Ms Ng Ling Ling asked about mediation mechanisms and legal assistance for small donors. Mediation is always a possibility for civil disputes. As for donors who require legal assistance, there are existing avenues for legal support, including legal clinics for individuals and the Singapore Association of Trade and Commerce, which provides legal support for businesses.

I will now talk about support and help for recipients of donated food.

Mr Yip asked if the Bill offers legal protection for donors who unintentionally provide food that does not align with a recipient's dietary needs. The Bill does provide this legal protection as long as the four conditions are met.

Mr Keith Chua suggested that we introduce channels of guidance for food-insecure communities to assist them in making the right choices and advising them on their rights. The usual channels for legal aid and assistance, including the Legal Aid Bureau and Pro Bono SG, are available.

On helping food insecure communities to make the right choices, our social service agencies, food charities and Government agencies play an important role in helping those they serve make informed choices while respecting their autonomy to decide for themselves. What Mr Chua suggested is very much needed and public education is key to this Bill.

Finally, on public education and partnerships.

Waiving liability is just one part of the food donation picture. Miss Rachel Ong spoke about how public education alongside the Bill's implementation is key. I could not agree more with Miss Ong's point that rescued food is not meant only for the needy, but for all of us. The rest of society must adopt a similar mindset for food waste reduction efforts in Singapore for it to be significant and effective.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh noted that there is a need for education and understanding, especially over social and cultural norms on food wastage. Mr Don Wee suggested fostering partnerships between donors and reputable charities to ensure proper distribution and use of donated food.

These are good questions. Encouraging food donation requires tackling a much broader set of issues than just liability. As Ms Poh Li San rightly noted, there is much work to be done after we introduce this Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill. We will need to encourage businesses and supermarkets to come onboard as examples for other food suppliers and operators. We will also need to increase the number of volunteers, food collection points, donation drop-off nodes and distribution points.

Stronger partnerships between food rescue groups, Social Service Offices and Family Service Centres will also help in strengthening food donation networks. As Mr Edward Chia suggested, the CDCs also have an important role to play in terms of establishing community-based redistribution networks.

I feel like I am just shooting arrows here, but the point is that many people have to come onboard this journey for this to be a successful journey. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill is important, but, again, it is just one part of a larger picture. I hope the Government will continue working with businesses and food charities to look into what else we can do to encourage food donation.

As Ms Joan Pereira suggested, the Government should also consider providing the administrative and infrastructural support to help organisations get started on this journey of donation. MSF's Food Charities Work Group that I have mentioned many times in this speech is an important platform for such conversations.

I should add that following this Bill, I will continue to speak up about tackling food waste. This is not the end of my journey. I promise to continue to file Parliamentary Questions on this and to continue to push the Government to, as always, do more and, before I forget, do more, more quickly.

Sir, let me conclude. It has been an absolutely rewarding four-year journey in drafting this Bill. As Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out, this Bill can be a catalyst for positive change in how we, as a society, approach food waste and food security. It is about developing a more sustainable and compassionate society. I hope we become more compassionate.

I sincerely hope we can achieve what Ms Jean See shared in her speech, that this "Bill is the gamechanger that can help to dismantle the stigma surrounding food support while giving food-insecure families the confidence to benefit from food support that is dignified, sustained, adequate and enriching". I hope we become more sustainable.

Miss Rachel Ong shared about how reducing food waste is a nationwide effort and requires a society-wide change. We have to change. I have to stress that the key point of this Bill is not just about urging people to donate food but to really have people rethink our throwaway culture. Think about not wasting food in the first place. Change our habits. It is scary that food waste is so ingrained in our society now. Some of the businesses were telling me that they already factored food waste into their business costs. Do not need to worry about throwing food away. They already factored it in.

The work of the Committee and the Government is far from done. This Bill is only a starting point to create an effective legal and policy framework for the food donation ecosystem in Singapore. I hope that the learnings from this Bill will form the foundation for future improvements in our food donation landscape and I hope we will see an update in the next few years.

As I worked on this Bill, I was constantly reminded of my late grandmother. Actually, I constantly nag people about not wasting food because my grandmother constantly nagged me when I was young to not waste food. One of my tasks at family meals when I was a little boy was to scoop rice for everyone. I always remember opening the rice cooker and seeing my grandmother's food there.

She was always one meal behind the rest of the family. When we were having dinner, she was having the leftovers from lunch. After dinner, she stored the leftover food overnight to eat the next day. For her, and for many of our Pioneer Generation, even the smallest scrap of food waste is unthinkable.

My grandmother did not even want to waste gas to warm up her food. She warmed up her food using the steam in the rice cooker as we cooked our rice.

We now live in a time when food is more abundant as compared to the past. Most Singaporeans not only have more than enough food available, we are spoilt for choice, with food from all corners of the world being imported into Singapore daily.

But let us not forget that there are also many Singaporeans who are not sure what or when their next meal will be. I hope this Bill will bring back the spirit of the Pioneer Generation, the true champions against food waste, and cultivate these habits in our younger generations.

Sir, I hope I have answered all the clarifications that Members have raised and I again thank everyone for your strong support and for your very good questions. I would be glad to answer any further clarifications.

Let me now end with a quote, as always, in the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "Earth provides enough to satisfy every person's needs, but not every person's greed". Let us treasure our precious resources and, together, tackle this throwaway culture.

Sir, you have no idea how much it means for me to say the next few words, how much it means for our extremely hardworking Good Samaritan Legislation Review Committee members and my Legislative Assistants, for the passionate food donors and dedicated food charities and community groups, how much it means for those struggling to have three meals a day and how much it means for our planet. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Mr Ng, my grandmother and my mother had exactly the same behaviour as your grandmother. Any clarifications for Mr Ng? Looks like, Mr Ng, your wrap-up speech was very, very comprehensive. None?

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]