Mr Speaker, food safety and security are increasingly important concerns for our country. While I welcome the introduction of this Bill, I do have some questions for the Minister and would like to share some concerns.
I welcome the change in law providing for the increased flexibility for Singaporeans to import food of all types (save for a few specific items like animal blood) for personal consumption limited to 15 kg, doing away with existing rules allowing Singaporeans to say bring home meat products from certain countries alone. I think the rule change makes good sense and allows Singaporeans to make decisions for themselves for their own personal consumption. I recall that on a constituency trip to Johore last year, a resident of mine happily bought a number of rice dumplings with pork intending for her family members to enjoy, having first tried one and found them to be good. But she had to share the dumplings with fellow travellers for consumption before coming back to Singapore when she found out that she was not allowed to bring the dumplings into Singapore.
Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the good efforts of SFA in promoting and enhancing food safety in recent years, we continue to read of incidents of food poisoning arising from catered food. I note the tiering and enhancing of penalties and the strengthening of food safety regulatory framework. Beyond increasing penalties, can the minister share with this house what are the other efforts of SFA to promote best practices in the industry and minimize incidents of food poisoning? How can SFA engender a deeper appreciation of good food safety practices and ingrain a strong food safety culture among caterers and workers in the industry?
I next turn to food security. Mr Speaker, over the Chinese New Year period in 2019, Malaysia banned the export of four species of fish to Singapore as well as considered limiting egg imports here to Singapore[1]. Shortly after that, at the Committee of Supply Debates in March 2019, the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, told Parliament about SFA’s “Grow Local” strategy to, I quote, “reduce our reliance on imports, and buffer the impact of overseas supply disruptions” Unquote. The stated aim was to, I quote, “locally produce 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030”. Unquote.
Last August, Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon replied to Parliamentary questions from myself and other members of this house on the “30 by 30 vision” and gave some updates on our efforts to achieve the “30 by 30 vision”. Among other things, he mentioned that the business climate has, since 2019, become less favourable due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical tensions and inflation.
He mentioned that during the COVID-19 pandemic and initial phase of reopening, our farms faced a shortage of foreign workers and construction delays and 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. SMS Koh also said that (and I quote) “the “30 by 30 vision” has always been an aspiration”. While I note the challenges he has mentioned, I do hope that the expression “aspiration” will not imply any buckling down from the government’s resolve to achieve its goal of locally producing 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030.
It can’t be because we need, now more than before, to press on towards the goal in the next 5 years, in spite of the challenges. Given the geo-political economy and landscape, now, more than before, we need, to use Minister Masagos’ words from 5 years ago, to, I quote, “strengthen climate resilience and overcome our resource constraints” (unquote).
Mr Speaker, many felt that the recently concluded COP29 had focused more on securing agreement for the carbon credit issue over the need to reduce carbon emissions. At its current pace, the world’s current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) lead to about 2.7°C warming[2], far from the 1.5°C Paris Agreement target. Falling short of this target for 2030 is worrying for the world and for Singapore as climate changes are ever visible everywhere in the world with more frequent and unexpected bad weather or serious weather pattern changes, including floods, droughts, etc. One important consequence we are starting to see is how climate changes more frequently and adversely affect farming output, including aquaculture.
The recent crop failures of cocoa and coffee beans worldwide leading to massive increase in prices is a good reminder of how climate changes can affect worldwide supply and pricing of staple foods. Black pod disease and extreme heat followed by heavy rain impacted cocoa yields[3], sending price increase from US$2500 per tonne in March 2023 to US$10,000 a year later[4].
Temperature rises and lack of rainfall in Brazil led to price increase of Arabica coffee beans from US$1.5 per pound in October 2023 to US$2.5 per pound in July 2024[5]. Price of Robusta coffee beans rose from US$2.60 per kilogramme in July 2023 to US$4.68 per kilogramme a year later due to one of the worst droughts in Vietnam[6].
Even rice, which is a stockpile item under the Minimum Stockholding Requirement (MSR) in the current Bill, is highly vulnerable to climate change as it requires a high amount of water, is unable to withstand any drought and can only grow between 21-37°C. Temperatures above 35°C can adversely affect yields. With the current global warming trajectory of 2.7°C, one cannot rule out rice yields being affected by weather changes in the coming years.
Many smaller states are disproportionately affected by climate change as compared to bigger countries who have greater means and may prioritise their own climate change interests ahead of others. In COP29, many small states were disappointed that small states received much less funding than required (US$300 billion instead of US$1.3 trillion). Some progress but arguably insufficient for the Paris goals.
In this post-COVID world, the continual rise of protectionism worldwide coupled with the lack of enforceable global frameworks may likely see countries prioritizing self-preservation and self-interest leaving vulnerable small states like Singapore, who requires imports of most of our needs. If food producing countries are affected by crop failures or declines brought about by climate changes, there may not be sufficient food exports and countries like Singapore will suffer by the drop in supply or even significant price increases which will also bring financial hardship to our people. Likewise geo-political conflicts or tensions may also affect food production and exports leading to similar consequences. In short, the above circumstances underlie the increased importance of food security for Singapore in an increasingly uncertain world.
This Bill introduces the MSR regime. I can agree that the MSR regime will, in principle, be able to provide us with a short-term food supply especially in time of crisis when for political or environmental reasons, fresh supplies of food are suddenly cut off from Singapore. However, the devil is in the details. Besides rice, which is already subject to the current Rice Stockpiling Scheme, what other food will eventually be required to be maintained under the MSR regime? Would the MSR eventually cover a full range of food items providing for adequate nutritional and calorific requirements for every adult and child? I heard SMS Koh said earlier that it will only be rice now but what are the conditions that will enable the DG to decide on other food categories in future?
The Bill also does not explicitly specify the required levels or thresholds under the MSR regime. Given that Singapore relies heavily on imported food supply (about 90% of our food supply), the MSR must be set at a level that can sustain our population during significant disruptions. Such risks can include pandemics, geopolitical tensions, export bans and climate related shocks. Can the Minister share with the house what are the expected levels of stockpiling required under the MSR regime? I urge the government to give some details here to give assurance to Singaporeans of the sufficiency of the MSR stockpiles in times of crisis.
On the other hand, the MSR regime may impose significant burden on our food suppliers and importers. While the Bill is imposing penalties on businesses under the MSR regime, has the Government studied the financial impact the MSR regime may have on our Singapore suppliers and importers, especially our SMEs and local businesses? Will financial assistance by way of grants or subsidies be given to SMEs to help them to comply with the SMR stockpile requirements and if so, what are these?
Beyond financial assistance for the additional stocks required to be stockpiled by businesses under the MSR regime, will the Government also provide direct financial assistance by way of grants or subsidies or even actual warehouse space for the additional storage space for the mandated stockpiles so that businesses will not be out of pocket?
It is pertinent that the Government should take steps to ensure that all compliance costs will not be passed on to the ultimate consumers.
Mr Speaker, I have asked in my Parliamentary Question in August last year how the Government will assist our agri-trade businesses in coping with business cost challenges as they play their part in the Government’s “30 by 30 vision”. SMS Koh replied that SFA ensures that the Agri-Food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund remains relevant in meeting farms’ business and growth needs. The Agri-Food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund is a $60 million fund in Singapore that supports local food-producing companies in the agri-food sector. The fund was established in April 2021 by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) to help local farms adopt advanced farming systems and technology.
SMS Koh also said that 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. He added that the SFA introduced the Energy Efficiency Programme (EEP) in 2023 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.
While I am sure that the ACT has helped some businesses, I urge the Government to consider also giving assistance beyond capital expenses. This may be for farms which are not necessarily high technology or require assistance outside of technology or capability upgrades. Labour and rental costs are always a bug bear in Singapore.
SMS Koh, in a reply to another member of this house in August was vehement against directly offsetting operating expenses, stating, and I quote, “it 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”. Unquote.
I understand his reasoning but I still hope the Government can do more to help our agri-businesses who are impacted by high operating expenses. Unlike other business sectors, the Government needs to find different ways to help our farms and agri-trade businesses to produce sufficiently so that they can in turn can help Singapore to achieve the “30 by 30 vision” for our food security. How can the Government do more to help our farms and businesses to supply the required products given weather and other environmental constraints, higher production labour and rental costs, which may make their products more expensive as compared to the same products from another country? It won’t be just any type of vegetables or fish that is easy and cheap to grow or breed in Singapore. Our farms must supply part of the common basic food choices required by our own consumers. The global norm for agriculture policies in developed countries is to provide direct ongoing subsidies for farms to meet operation expenses, tied to various goals such as maintaining soil health, improving livestock management, and reducing emissions. This can be seen in the EU member countries, Japan, Canada and New Zealand[KY1] .[7] Granted that our agriculture is on a different scale compared with these countries, but a little more help to our farms and businesses.where possible, even not on the same scale, can still help to push the needle.
Granted that our agriculture may be at a different scale compared to these countries, but a little more help to our farms and businesses, where possible, even on a different scale, can still help to push the needle.
One of our residents has asked about the effectiveness of the current measures as taken by the Government. He has asked that, if the current Government initiatives are adequate or productive, why are local farms still struggling and, in some cases, closing down? Indeed, those who are struggling or closing down – they cannot all be the inefficient players.
Our resident has also asked what are the additional steps which can be taken to ensure the sustainability and growth of local farms and whether there are gaps in the current approach that need to be addressed to better support our local producers.
Mr Speaker, I would also urge SFA to look into assisting our agri- businesses, to secure seeds, feed and fertiliser. The same issues of food security for crops will also affect the security of seeds, feed and fertiliser. Without security of supply with stable pricing, this will affect the ability of our agri-businesses to secure their production and ultimately supply of food to Singaporeans, not to mention the survival of their businesses.
Mr Speaker, regardless of the challenges, we need to continue to push up our domestic food production. At the same time, there should be more bottom-up conversations with all stakeholders in the food sector to identify the pain points that each is facing whether in farming, supplying or in procuring local produce.
Minister Grace Fu in a recent reply on 12 November 2024 to a Parliamentary Question from my colleague, Aljunied MP, Gerald Giam shared that the SFA has been supporting the industry in achieving greater offtake for local produce through various initiatives. She said that this included incorporating a criterion in Government procurement to give additional points to businesses who have undertaken sustainability initiatives, such as being recognised under the Farm-to-Table Recognition Programme (FTTRP), for procuring locally grown produce. The additional points increase their chances of securing Government catering contracts, including those with key Government entities. I welcome this and other efforts she shared.
Indeed, to support Singapore’s “30 by 30” goal of producing 30% of nutritional needs locally by 2030, efforts should focus on increasing uptake of locally produced food by major institutional buyers. These institutional buyers supply food to key government entities like the SAF, public hospitals, prisons, welfare homes and senior care centres, and play critical roles in scaling demand for domestic food. Incentivising these major institutional food buyers through long-term contracts, contractual requirements or price support measures can make locally sourced products more competitive, promoting the market viability of Singapore’s local food producers and enhancing national food security.
Minister Grace Foo also said our local agri-food sector also depends on consumer demand for their products, that consumers can play a part by choosing to purchase local produce which can be easily recognised by the red SG Fresh Produce logo or dine at food businesses under the FTTRP. I strongly agree with her when she said that “local produce is fresher, lasts longer and incurs less transport miles as it need not travel long distances or for long periods of time before reaching consumers”. For many years, this adage of “incurring less air miles” has been in our minds whenever my wife and I are buying groceries. We may not always be able to avoid buying foods from afar but it does help to steer decisions towards to buy local products whenever they are available. “Less Air Miles”, my wife will always remind me.
Mr Speaker, in closing, I hope the Government will continue to spare no efforts to achieve its “30 by 30 vision” to locally produce 30% of Singapore’s nutritional needs by 2030. This should complement the new MSR regime setting up food stockpiles. Notwithstanding my questions, I support the Bill.
[1] https://mothership.sg/2019/03/30-by-30-food-security-singapore-food-agency/
[2] https://climateactiontracker.org/climate-target-update-tracker-2035/
[3] https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/cocoa-prices]
[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/26/cocoa-prices-are-soaring-to-record-levels-what-it-means-for-consumers.html]
[5] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-07/coffee-prices-jump-on-weather-concerns/104104818
[6] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-05-24/global-food-roundup-coffee-prices-are-rising-on-shortages;https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-07/coffee-prices-jump-on-weather-concerns/104104818
[7] Japan: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tessd_e/190923_subsidies_presentation4.pdf
NZ: https://www.cato.org/free-society/summer-2024/freedom-farm-lessons-new-zealand
Canada: https://www.ifn.se/media/wgzbsabl/wp1129.pdf
EU (Common Agricultural Policy): https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-glance_en
[KY1]Japan: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tessd_e/190923_subsidies_presentation4.pdf
NZ: https://www.cato.org/free-society/summer-2024/freedom-farm-lessons-new-zealand
Canada: https://www.ifn.se/media/wgzbsabl/wp1129.pdf
EU (Common Agricultural Policy): https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-glance_en