Introduction
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the objectives of this Bill. Extending our energy efficiency framework to cover goods imported for personal use is a logical and necessary step. This Bill will align all imported electronic goods with the energy efficiency standards and labelling requirements that already apply to goods supplied commercially in Singapore, ensuring a level playing field and giving consumers a consistent basis for informed purchasing decisions. However, I wish to seek several clarifications from the SMS on the enforcement architecture, the scope of the Director-General's new powers, and the question of inter-agency coordination, particularly between the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment, which oversees the industry and household sectors under this Act, and the Ministry of Transport, which oversees the transport sector.
Enforcement Architecture for Personal Imports
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill creates a new prohibition on importing non-compliant regulated goods for personal use, but it is entirely silent on how this prohibition will be enforced at the border. This is not a minor operational detail, it goes to the heart of whether these amendments will have practical effect.
For commercial shipments, our existing regulatory infrastructure is well-established. TradeNet declarations, licensed warehouses, and Customs checkpoints provide natural interception points. But the “own-use” imports targeted by this Bill arrive through very different channels.
Consider the practical scenarios. A person orders a portable air-conditioning unit from an overseas e-commerce platform, and it arrives via international parcel post. A business owner drives across the Causeway with a piece of industrial equipment in the back of a van. A traveller returns from a trip with a new kitchen appliance in checked baggage. In none of these cases is there an obvious regulatory checkpoint at which compliance can be verified.
I would like to ask the SMS to address the following:
First, rather than building a new declaration regime from scratch, will the Ministry consider leveraging the trade information certificate framework under the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act? That framework already provides for certificates certifying matters relating to the import of goods, and includes a provision allowing the Minister to prescribe additional certifiable matters. Energy efficiency compliance could be prescribed as one such matter, allowing importers of regulated goods to declare compliance through an existing system that Singapore Customs and traders are already familiar with.
Second, for goods arriving by post or courier, will the Ministry be working with Singapore Customs and Singapore Post to establish screening protocols? Will parcel manifests or trade descriptions be used to flag potentially non-compliant imports?
Third, for goods brought in by land through the checkpoints, what role will the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority play? Is it realistic to expect ICA officers, whose primary focus is immigration and security, to also screen for energy efficiency compliance?
Fourth, will enforcement be proactive, through inspections and spot-checks, or reactive, relying on complaints and tip-offs? If the latter, the Bill’s deterrent effect may be significantly limited.
Without a credible enforcement framework, we risk creating a prohibition that exists on paper but is widely disregarded in practice. That outcome would undermine public confidence in the regulatory regime and create unfairness between compliant importers who bear the cost of registration and those who simply do not bother.
Safeguards on the Director-General’s Expanded Discretionary Powers
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill significantly expands the discretionary powers of the Director-General of Environmental Protection. Under the new sections 13(2A) and 15(5), the Director-General may, at any time after registration or renewal, impose new conditions on, or modify or revoke existing conditions of, a registration. The Bill also grants the Director-General broad discretion under section 31B to grant or refuse waivers based on whether there are “good reasons” to do so.
I acknowledge that the Bill includes procedural safeguards: the Director-General must give written notice of proposed conditions or modifications, and allow the registration holder to make written representations before a decision is made. There is also an appeal mechanism to the Minister under section 17.
However, I wish to raise several points on the adequacy of these safeguards.
First, the power to impose or modify conditions “at any time” is very broad. There is no that conditions be related to the original purpose of the registration, no cap on the frequency of modifications, and no requirement that conditions be proportionate.
Second, the Bill does not specify any timeframe within which the registration holder must be given to make representations. This is left entirely to the Director-General’s discretion. In other legislations, the Healthcare Services Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and the Workplace Safety and Health Act, to name three, Parliament has seen fit to prescribe a minimum period, typically 14 days, within which affected persons may make representations or appeal. This Bill, by contrast, sets no such minimum.
Third, on the waiver mechanism under section 31B, the criterion of “good reasons” is inherently subjective. I would ask the SMS whether the Ministry intends to issue published guidelines setting out the circumstances in which waivers will typically be considered, so that applicants have reasonable certainty and the regime is applied consistently across cases.
Fourth, will decisions of the Director-General, particularly refusals of waivers and imposition of conditions, be published or reported in any aggregated form? Transparency in decision-making is essential to maintaining public and industry confidence in the regulatory regime.
Inter-Agency Coordination
Mr Deputy Speaker, my final point concerns the practical coordination required to make this Bill work. The Energy Conservation Act is jointly administered by the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment, which oversees the industry and household sectors, and the Ministry of Transport, which oversees the transport sector. The Act is primarily enforced by the National Environment Agency. This Bill’s expansion to cover “own-use” imports will necessarily engage many more government agencies beyond this existing arrangement.
Enforcement at the border will require the active cooperation of Singapore Customs for commercial and postal shipments, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority for goods brought in at the land and air checkpoints, and potentially the Infocomm Media Development Authority for enforcement against online platforms and digital advertisements. For the industrial sector, there will also be a need for coordination with the Economic Development Board, which promotes industrial investment, and the Energy Market Authority, which oversees the broader energy sector.
Where a regulated good falls under both the household and transport sectors, for example, an electric vehicle charger imported for personal use, it is not immediately clear whether the importer’s obligations fall under MSE’s or MOT’s purview, or both. The Bill does not address this.
The Bill itself does not address inter-agency coordination. This is not unusual, such matters are typically handled through administrative arrangements. But given the breadth of the new regime, I would ask the SMS to assure this Chamber that:
First, there is a clear inter-agency coordination framework between MSE and MOT, as well as between NEA and the other enforcement agencies, with defined roles and responsibilities for each agency involved.
Second, the NEA will have adequate resources, both in terms of manpower and technical capability, to administer the new registration, inspection, and waiver processes for personal imports, which will be a significant expansion of its current workload. I note, however, that the Bill's closing statement declares that it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. That is difficult to comprehend with the substantial new administrative functions these amendments introduce.
Third, there will be a single point of contact or one-stop service for importers, so that individuals and businesses are not shuttled between MSE, MOT, NEA, Customs, and ICA when trying to comply with the new requirements.
Fourth, for goods that may fall within the jurisdiction of both MSE and MOT, such as transport-related equipment imported for personal use, the Ministry will clarify which regime applies, to avoid regulatory ambiguity or duplication.
Conclusion
Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, closing the regulatory gap for personal imports is the right thing to do for our energy conservation goals and for fair competition. My concerns are not with the Bill's objectives, but with the practical details that will determine whether these amendments work on the ground, how we enforce at the border, how we safeguard against unchecked discretionary powers, and how we coordinate across the many agencies involved. I look forward to the Minister's response on these points.
Notwithstanding my queries and clarifications, I support the Bill.
Thank you.
