A PDF version of the article can be found here.
BUILDING ECOLOGICAL
RESILIENCE IN SINGAPORE’S ELECTRICITY SYSTEM TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Natania Peh Hui
Ting*
Singapore’s electricity
system has undergone, and continues to undergo, a transformation in an attempt
to achieve resilience in the context of climate change. In particular, efforts
have focused on the improvement of electricity network infrastructure such as
the undergrounding of transmission cables. While such adaptation measures have
contributed towards minimising the adverse effects of climate change, more
attention needs to be paid to mitigation strategies. As a small,
resource-constrained country, Singapore’s only viable renewable energy source
is solar photovoltaic (“PV”) power. As such, this article examines efforts
undertaken in Singapore to transform the electricity system, including laws and
initiatives to promote the use of solar PV panels. This article suggests that there
has been a failure in Singapore to integrate the concept of resilience at a
system-level that involves all sectors of society that can contribute towards a
transformative change of the electricity system. This article further suggests
that resilience in Singapore’s electricity system can only be achieved when all
the relevant actors (ie,
power generation companies, the power grid operator, the corporate sector, and
electricity consumers) are effectively engaged to drive system-level change
that achieves both mitigation and adaptation imperatives. This article proposes
a few recommendations for reform to strengthen Singapore’s journey towards
resilience and seeks to encourage further exploration and research into
adopting mitigation strategies for the reformation of Singapore’s electricity
system.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Climate change refers to “the collective effects of the rising average temperature of the Earth’s climate system”.[1] This includes increases in mean surface temperature, extreme weather, and changes in rainfall patterns.[2] In its 2014 Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) reported that the warming of the climate system was indisputable. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era and have accumulated to trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.[3] In fact, human activities are estimated to have already caused approximately 1.0℃ of global warming above pre-industrial levels.[4] It is widely accepted, and supported by a plethora of scientific sources, that climate change poses significant risks on human systems.[5] The IPCC’s 2018 Special Report highlights some of these risks, including impacts on human health, livelihoods such as fisheries, and food security through impacts on livestock and agriculture.[6]
In Southeast Asia, the devastating risks of climate change and global warming are evident. For instance, climate change is believed to have worsened the impact of Typhoon Haiyan on the Philippines in 2013.[7] The likelihood of severe typhoons in Southeast Asia is also expected to triple by 2040.[8] As a low-lying island city-state located in Southeast Asia, Singapore will not be spared from regional climate change risks. In recent years, Singapore has seen a worrying trend of increasing temperatures and shorter but higher intensity rainfall.[9] The annual mean temperature has risen from 26.6℃ in 1972 to 28.3℃ in 2015,[10] which was the joint-warmest year (together with 2019).[11] In addition, the total rainfall in June 2020 was 233.8mm, making it the wettest month in the last 10 years. 21 rain days were also recorded in the same month, the highest in the last 30 years, and heavy rainfall on some days contributed to flash floods at various locations on the island.[12] Flash floods are becoming more frequent in Singapore,[13] a clear symptom of the impacts of climate change.[14]
Rising temperatures in Singapore increase the energy demand for cooling, especially air-conditioning.[15] In fact, Singapore has more air-conditioner installations per capita than any of its Southeast Asian neighbours, and the intense heat is likely to drive the number and usage of air-conditioners even higher.[16] The implication on Singapore’s electricity system is this: increased electricity consumption translates into increased demand for electricity generation. Currently, 96% of Singapore’s electricity is produced using natural gas, which is a fossil fuel.[17] Scientists attribute a significant part of climate change to an increase in the concentration of GHG emissions from burning fossil fuels, because GHG emissions trap infrared radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere, which causes global heating.[18] In Singapore, the most significant GHG emitted is carbon dioxide, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity.[19] Together with increased electricity demand, the increased intensity of rainfall further exacerbates the pressure placed on Singapore’s electricity system. This is because intense rainfall increases the risk of flash floods which threaten to damage electricity network infrastructure and disrupt efforts to meet basic human needs and to recover from climate change-induced disasters.[20] As such, in line with grave concerns over the effects of climate change, the Singapore government has placed mitigating and adapting to climate change, especially of the electricity system, as a policy priority.[21]
Disruption to the access to electricity puts communities at risk, especially the most vulnerable members of society.[22] Given the increased demand and pressure on Singapore’s electricity industry, this article examines the efforts undertaken in Singapore to transform the electricity system. In particular, this article focuses on the uptake of solar photovoltaic (“PV”) power, which is the only viable renewable energy source in Singapore.[23] This article suggests that there has been an overall failure in Singapore to integrate the concept of resilience at a system-level that involves all sectors of society that can contribute significantly towards a transformative change of the electricity system. Reform needs to be holistic and must address all aspects of the system (ie, electricity generation, distribution, and consumption) in order to build the resilience of Singapore’s electricity system in the context of climate change.
Part II introduces the different conceptions of resilience and explains how adopting different conceptions will impact what reformative measures are chosen to transform the electricity system. Part III discusses and critically analyses the existing laws and measures that have been undertaken within the electricity sector by electricity companies to build resilience. Part IV makes some brief observations regarding how directors’ duties and shareholder activism in Singapore’s corporate sector could potentially contribute towards building resilience in the electricity system in this day and age. Part V focuses on the legal barriers faced by electricity consumers who wish to switch to solar PV power and suggests potential solutions. This article explores recommendations for legislative reforms as well as reforms outside of the statutory framework to help reshape Singapore’s approach towards building community resilience.
II.
THE DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF
RESILIENCE
Different understandings of the term ‘resilience’ can lead to contradictory approaches to the reform and development of electricity law, which in turn gives shape to the electricity system.[24] In fact, one study identified over 119 distinct definitions of resilience.[25] Many attribute the concept’s proliferation to its flexible nature; however, this same characteristic also makes it vulnerable to becoming a vague slogan which can be used to advance completely different agendas.[26]
Davoudi conducted an analysis of definitions and measures associated with resilience and categorised them into three distinct groups.[27] The first concept of engineering resilience focuses on the ability of a system to return to an equilibrium after a disturbance.[28] The emphasis of this concept is on the return time and bounce-back ability of the system.[29] The second concept of ecological resilience, on the other hand, focuses on the magnitude of the disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure. Here, resilience focuses on the ability to persist and adapt.[30] The third concept of evolutionary resilience is based on the idea that a system may change over time without external disturbance, and hence, has the ability to evolve independently.[31] With regards to the electricity system, only two of the three concepts of resilience are relevant, namely engineering resilience and ecological resilience. Evolutionary resilience is not relevant for the purposes of this article, because evolutionary resilience concerns the absence of an external disturbance; however, this article is premised on climate change being the external disturbance to the functioning of Singapore’s electricity system. Consequently, only engineering resilience and ecological resilience are salient in the context of the electricity system.
Further scrutiny of the concepts of engineering resilience and ecological resilience reveals that the main difference between these two concepts is that engineering resilience envisages a system bouncing backwards to the state it was in before a disturbance, whereas ecological resilience envisages that a resilient system will bounce forward and adapt to the disturbance.[32] This difference is not merely semantic but can have significant implications. For instance, a bridge that absorbs and adapts to a disturbance would look very different from a bridge that is designed to resist the disturbance.[33]
Applying this to the context of the electricity system, engineering resilience has a clear overtone of keeping the lights on, or, in other words, of maintaining the status quo. System transformation has little to no role to play.[34] Measures that aim to achieve engineering resilience are adaptation measures which relate to taking steps to prepare and respond to the effects of climate change, also known as “building resilience to climate change”.[35] Adaptation imperatives ask the question of how we can continue to deliver electricity in the same way as before in light of climate change.[36] Examples of adaptation measures in the electricity system might include adding new components to strengthen existing infrastructure, waterproofing existing infrastructure that are vulnerable to water damage, and undergrounding cables to reduce the risk of damage.
On the other hand, ecological resilience is
concerned with the ability of a system to persist and adapt. Measures in light
of this concept of resilience are mitigation measures, which means “reducing or
avoiding greenhouse gas emissions to minimise the rate and magnitude of climate
change”.[37] Mitigation imperatives include decarbonising the electricity system
by employing renewable energy sources.[38]
This article suggests that improving Singapore’s electricity resilience should be achieved through system transformation rather than through a further hardening of the existing electricity infrastructure. Adopting the concept of engineering resilience will overemphasise the effectiveness of adaptation imperatives and will entrench the notion of hardening outdated infrastructure. In contrast, the concept of ecological resilience will encourage the development of a more flexible electricity system grounded in both mitigation and adaptation imperatives. In light of the increasing trend of both the frequency and intensity of rainfall and flash floods, as well as the concomitant increase of electricity demand for cooling due to rising temperatures, Singapore’s electricity system must be ready not to bounce back to the state it was in before but to adapt so as to overcome uncertain climate change risks in the foreseeable future.
This article will now proceed to examine how the concepts of engineering resilience, ecological resilience, adaptation measures, and mitigation measures play out in Singapore’s electricity system. This will be done in three separate parts, each part examining a specific actor in the electricity system. Part III will first discuss and critically analyse the existing laws and measures that have been undertaken within the electricity sector by electricity companies, and will conclude by proposing reforms that will better achieve ecological resilience.
III.
ELECTRICITY COMPANIES
Singapore’s electricity sector possesses certain characteristics which impact the ability to achieve the system-wide ecological resilience that is required to meet adaptation and mitigation imperatives. First, the electricity sector relies on capital-intensive infrastructure to deliver its services including power plants for generation and the power grid for distribution.[39] Second, Singapore’s electricity sector has been liberalised in order to promote effective market competition:[40] there are currently 16 power generator licensees,[41] one power grid licensee,[42] and 26 retail electricity licensees.[43] As such, while there is a technologically-integrated electricity system, this market framework “entrenches a fragmented ownership structure that acts as a barrier to system-level transformation”.[44] Therefore, in order to achieve an integrated system solution for the future electricity system, measures need to target all stakeholders within the electricity sector and promote dialogue and cooperation between the different functions.
In order to narrow the scope of the discussion to engage in thorough analysis, this article will focus exclusively on two key players within the electricity sector: power generation companies and Singapore’s sole power grid distribution company. This part is divided into three sections. The first and second sections examine the existing regulation and initiatives in respect of power generation companies and proposes recommended reforms. The difference; however, is that the first section will focus on Singapore’s substantive legislation, ie, what happens within the legal framework of electricity generation, whereas the second section will shift to consider what happens outside of the regulatory framework. The third section argues that Singapore’s sole power grid distribution company has singularly focused on adaptation measures to the exclusion of mitigation measures and proposes recommendations to balance this inequity so as to better achieve ecological resilience in electricity distribution.
A.
ELECTRICITY GENERATION:
WITHIN THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The existing legal framework in Singapore is deficient in that it lacks a statutory resilience management framework for electricity infrastructure. Having a statutory framework is crucial in achieving system-wide ecological resilience, because it has the potential to, among other things, set out mandatory obligations on the owners of electricity infrastructure so as to increase system resilience. The absence of a statutory resilience management framework in Singapore also obfuscates the goal of ‘resilience’, because it is neither defined nor firmly established as the goal in the process of reforming the electricity system. Without a purpose, there is no direction; the enactment of a framework could define this purpose as ecological resilience.
1.
Existing Electricity Generation
Framework
The main legislation governing the electricity sector in Singapore is the Electricity Act 2001 (“EA”),[45] which aims to create a competitive market framework and to provide safety and technical regulation. Furthermore, additional legislation on environmental protection has been enacted more recently in order to fulfil Singapore’s international obligations to combat climate change.[46] In line with the Paris Agreement,[47] Singapore has pledged to reduce GHG emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030.[48] Consequently, legislation enacted to achieve this intent include the Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999 (“EPMA”)[49] and the Carbon Pricing Act 2018 (“CPA”).[50] Under the EA, electrical installations must be inspected at regular intervals by the Energy Market Authority of Singapore,[51] and the licensee is under a duty to make good or remove any defects in electrical installations within a specified period.[52] However, the EA makes no mention of the term ‘resilience’ and does not provide any framework of legal obligations structured around ‘increasing resilience’. The EPMA consolidates environmental pollution control laws and creates offences relating to the prohibition of dark smoke from chimneys,[53] the control of air impurities,[54] and the discharge of trade effluent and polluting matter.[55] Notably, section 71(1) of the EPMA provides that where an offence committed by a corporate body is committed with the consent or connivance of an officer or is attributable to any act on his part, the officer as well as the corporate body shall be guilty of the offence. This imposition of criminal liability on officers of the company highlights Singapore’s dedication towards combating GHG emissions and climate change. The CPA, which is more recent than the EPMA, is also illustrative of Singapore’s increasingly strict stance on potential criminal liability. The CPA was passed with the clear intent of mitigating climate change and includes a range of offences relating to the submission of GHG emissions reports and monitoring plans.[56] In particular, section 68(2)(b)(iii) of the CPA provides that where an officer or an individual involved in the management of the corporate body “knew or ought reasonably to have known” of the offence and “failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent or stop the commission of that offence”, the individual will be guilty of the same offence. This goes beyond the EPMA by allowing omissions to suffice for criminal liability to arise. Both the EPMA and CPA are therefore examples of mitigation measures, because they aim to reduce GHG emissions by imposing duties based on the amount of GHG emissions.
2.
Deficiencies of the Existing
Electricity Generation Framework
However, despite these mitigation efforts, both the EPMA and CPA focus on tackling the negative externalities of the produced GHG emissions instead of targeting the underlying processes that produce such emissions.[57] Another noticeable shortfall is that the EPMA and CPA make no mention of the term ‘resilience’ or of ‘improving resilience’ through the upgrading of electrical infrastructure.
There seems to be a gap in Singapore’s existing regulatory framework that pertains to electricity generation companies. Singapore lacks an objective to build the resilience of the electricity infrastructure. ‘Resilience’ has not been defined or even adopted as a normative statutory objective. As such, the first step towards achieving system-wide ecological resilience is to adopt and define ‘resilience’ within a statutory resilience management framework. In this regard, Australian legislation provides valuable lessons for potential reform in Singapore. Two Victorian acts are particularly relevant to both climate change and Australia’s energy system: the Climate Change Act 2017 (“CCA”)[58] and the Emergency Management Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Resilience) Act 2014 (“EMA”).[59]
3.
Proposed Reforms to remedy the Deficiencies
of the Existing Electricity Generation Framework
First, Singapore can build upon the approach by the CCA by adopting ‘resilience’ as an objective and by going beyond the CCA by defining the term ‘resilience’ to mean ecological resilience. The CCA introduces “infrastructure resilience” as a legislative objective and seeks to “build the resilience of the State’s infrastructure; through effective adaptation”.[60] However, the CCA does not define ‘resilience’ and whether this objective is able to deliver any form of system-wide resilience in the electricity system remains to be seen.[61] Singapore does not have a CCA counterpart and should introduce one in order to firmly establish the normative objective of building resilience in electricity infrastructure. Furthermore, in order to remove any ambiguity, the definition of resilience should be defined as ecological resilience. This is especially important in Singapore, where engineering resilience seems to be dominating the perception of what successful resilience looks like. Evidence of this can be observed in Singapore’s 2016 Climate Action Plan entitled “A Climate-Resilient Singapore, For a Sustainable Future”,[62] where the proposed next steps to combat climate change include: building geo-bags and seawalls for coastal protection, building new desalination plants to improve water quality, and installing flood barriers in low-lying areas to preserve the operation of telecommunications and the electricity network.[63] All of these are adaptation measures that very much reflect the concept of engineering resilience. There is a clear overtone of carrying on with existing processes. System transformation has little role to play in such a definition. Therefore, in Singapore’s context, the concept of ‘resilience’ needs to be revitalised by the system-wide and mitigatory approaches advocated by the concept of ecological resilience.
Second, in adopting a statutory framework, Singapore should be guided by the resilience management framework provided for under EMA as well as Victoria’s Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy (“CIR Strategy”).[64] The EMA introduces a comprehensive framework structured around “increasing resilience” and sets out detailed requirements for owners of critical infrastructure. As the first step, a standardised assessment test determines whether infrastructure is critical or vital.[65] Electricity infrastructure is considered critical and significant given that it supports all aspects of modern life.[66] Such infrastructure must be recorded in the Critical Infrastructure Register, which is established by the EMA.[67] Next, the EMA requires operators or owners of critical infrastructure to apply the “resilience improvement” cycle, which consists of an annual statement of assurance, emergency risk management planning and documentation, an exercise, audit processes and attestation.[68] While the EMA itself does not define “resilience”, Victoria’s CIR Strategy creates Sector Resilience Networks (“SRN”) for each critical infrastructure sector, including the electricity sector, and all SRNs are connected through an All Sector Resilience Network Forum.[69] Each SRN individually prepares and submits Sector Resilience Plans to the Victorian state government and produces an annual All Sectors Resilience Report.[70] The CIR Strategy therefore reflects a system-oriented approach built upon integrated cooperation and dialogue. Although the legislated process under the EMA is not linked back to the CIR Strategy,[71] taken as a whole, both measures focus on continuous improvement of infrastructure resilience by imposing mandatory obligations to monitor, cooperate, and develop risk management strategies.[72] As such, the legislation in Singapore of a process inspired by the EMA resilience improvement cycle and the CIR Strategy coordination and reporting obligations could overcome fragmentation in the liberalised electricity sector.[73] This would achieve a policy objective which relates to system-level and ecological resilience.[74]
B.
ELECTRICITY GENERATION: OUTSIDE THE
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Outside of the regulatory framework, some mitigation measures have been pursued; however, further efforts must be made to promote the uptake of solar power generation by power generation companies, and this should be supported by government investment.
1.
Existing Measures Implemented
Outside the Electricity Generation Legal Framework
Outside of the regulatory framework, Singapore’s government has promoted the use of natural gas, which is the cleanest fossil fuel today.[75] The government’s measures of negotiating liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) pipeline import contracts, appointing local LNG importers, and promoting the use of natural gas-fired generators[76] has largely been successful given that since 2000, Singapore has increased the percentage of LNG used in electricity generation from 19% to more than 95% today.[77] Among all fossil fuels, natural gas produces the least amount of carbon emissions per unit of electricity. Therefore, the Singapore government’s efforts in promoting the use of natural gas have cut the amount of GHG emissions released into the atmosphere.[78] These laudable efforts are examples of mitigation measures that lean towards an ecological resilience approach, given that they target the generation processes (and fossil fuel input materials) behind GHG emissions rather than solely focusing on the negative externalities of already-produced GHG emissions.
2.
Deficiencies in the Existing
Measures
Nevertheless, despite the success of government mitigation measures in reducing GHG emissions by utilising LNG, it is important to note that LNG, albeit the best fossil fuel, is still a fossil fuel. Hence, the focus of the government should be on encouraging a further shift by power generation companies from LNG to renewable sources of energy.
3.
Proposed Reforms to Remedy the
Deficiencies in the Existing Measures
The Singapore government should consider developing long-term stimulus packages to boost well-structured and just transitions from LNG to solar PV power. The economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic provides a valuable opportunity for Singapore to cancel coal and other fossil fuel projects and redirect investment to clean energy.[79] In addition, public funding may be further supported by galvanising private sector investment through the use of green bonds and environmental swaps.[80] Financial assistance and economic incentives are important to persuade power generation companies to adopt a system-wide, ecological, and complete transition from fossil fuels to solar PV power instead of cutting short the transition and settling at LNG, which although being the best fossil fuel, is still a fossil fuel.
In essence, this proposed recommendation is not inconsistent with the mitigation measure of employing LNG, but is in fact the next step, the next mitigation measure in the chain of transitioning from non-renewable energy sources to renewable energy sources.
C.
ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION
There is one transmission licensee in Singapore, SP PowerAssets Limited (“SPPA”).[81] SPPA owns and operates Singapore’s electricity network, which ranks one of the most reliable among major cities in the world and delivers electricity to 1.6 million customers across the country.[82] The adaptation efforts that SPPA have undertaken, and are currently undertaking, are commendable. However, SPPA’s seemingly singular focus on adaptation has undermined the importance of mitigation. This has resulted in a definition of resilience that is more akin to engineering resilience rather than systemic ecological resilience.
There are two major efforts that demonstrate SPPA’s pursuance of the adaptation imperative. The first is the underground transmission cable tunnels project (“Cable Project”).[83] As part of their long-term plan to secure reliable and efficient electricity supply, in 2019, SPPA completed the Cable Project. The Cable Project consists of 40 kilometers of cross-island underground transmission cable tunnels at a depth of 60 metres below ground (this is equivalent to a 20-storey building). SPPA stated that the Cable Project was an effort “to meet future needs” given that the “demand for power supply has increased” in Singapore and “there is a need to build a more sustainable solution to the ongoing upgrading [of Singapore’s electricity system]”.[84] The Cable Project was therefore a long-term solution to ensure the reliability and security of Singapore’s electricity supply, especially given the increasing intensity of flooding and risk of above-the-ground electricity infrastructure damage.[85]
The second project that SPPA is currently embarking on is Southeast Asia’s first large-scale underground electricity substation. This project is in line with SPPA’s goal of building sustainable infrastructure.[86] In its news release regarding the substation, SPPA alluded to the purposes of optimising space in land-scarce Singapore and of lowering the risk of electricity infrastructure being exposed and damaged.[87] Both of these SPPA projects reflect an engineering resilience definition of the phrase “sustainable development”, which is expressly mentioned by SPPA as the purpose of both projects. This is because the focus of both projects is on building hard infrastructure in order to adapt to climate change. “Sustainable development” is viewed as being able to maintain existing ways of electricity transmission but with upgraded infrastructure. This is contrary to the mitigation imperative, which would encourage a systemic change instead of merely switching out one component of the existing electricity network for another.
Although SPPA’s adaptation efforts are commendable, they contribute towards the entrenchment of engineering resilience in Singapore to the exclusion of ecological resilience. Instead of investing any further into adaptation measures, SPPA should shift its focus towards mitigation imperatives, particularly the systemic decarbonisation of the electricity system by employing solar PV power. As SPPA distributes electricity, their mitigation role could be to connect renewable energy technologies to the grid. In this regard, the German Renewable Energy Sources Act (“EEG”)[88] could inspire reform in Singapore. Under the EEG, system operators are required to connect renewable energy technologies to the grid[89] and remunerate their producers at specified rates.[90] This has been effective in encouraging the decarbonisation of the electricity grid in Germany.[91] If Singapore were to enact a similar legislation, this would likely contribute towards the decarbonisation of Singapore’s electricity network by obliging SPPA to connect renewable energy technologies to the grid. In addition, as discussed in the previous section, private and public funding would further incentivise the SPPA to act.
IV.
THE CORPORATE SECTOR
The corporate sector in Singapore has critical stakes in climate change, as businesses, and their operations, are or can be impacted by the consequences of climate change. At the same time, businesses can make a great difference towards the mitigation of climate change through business practices, such as compliance with regulatory measures for ameliorating climate change. Specifically, directors play an important role in companies as they, acting as the board of directors, are the directing power behind any company. Therefore, directors’ duties are one tool that can be utilised to impress upon directors the importance of ensuring that climate change issues are addressed and mitigated by their company operations.
This part is divided into two sections. The first section examines the role that directors’ duties could play in contributing to change in Singapore’s electricity system. The second section explores the role that shareholder activism could potentially play in enforcing directors’ duties.
A.
DIRECTORS’ DUTIES
The ambit of directors’ duties in Singapore is broad and consists of a complicated mix of statute and general law.[92] Therefore, directors’ duties in Singapore comprise both statutory as well as duties which arise under common law. However, this article does not seek to comprehensively detail the duties of directors in Singapore but rather aims to focus on directors’ duties which are pertinent to combating climate change. As such, although there are many other specific obligations imposed under Singapore’s Companies Act 1967 (“CA”),[93] this article focuses on the potential application of the duty of reasonable diligence, which is encapsulated under section 157(1) of the CA. The main question in this case is whether this duty obliges a director to consider climate change and its associated risks in making business decisions.
The duty of reasonable diligence under section 157(1) of the CA provides that “[a] director shall at all times … use reasonable diligence in the discharge of the duties of his office (emphasis added)”. This duty was interpreted by the Singapore High Court in Lim Weng Kee v Public Prosecutor[94] (“Lim Weng Kee”) as being an objective assessment of whether the director has exercised the same degree of care, skill, and diligence as a reasonable director found in his position.[95] This standard is flexible and depends on a multitude of factors including the type of decision that is being made as well as the size and business of the company. Importantly, the High Court emphasised that the standard would not be lowered to accommodate inadequacies in a director’s knowledge or experience. Instead, the standard would be raised if a director held himself out as possessing, or in fact possesses, special knowledge or experience.[96] As an illustration, in Lim Weng Kee, the defendant was the managing director of three companies which operated pawn shops. He had released valuable pawned items before the cheques presented to redeem the items had been cleared. The cheques were duds, and the companies consequently suffered substantial losses.[97] In holding that the defendant’s conduct had fallen short of the standard expected of him, the High Court stressed the fact that the defendant had run the pawn business for over 20 years. This qualified as special experience regarding the mechanics and financial risk factors affecting the pawn business and therefore raised the standard of reasonable diligence that was expected of the defendant.[98] It therefore follows that section 157(1) of the CA imposes a high duty on directors of companies, as directors are expected to at least be aware of the major factors that affect their business and company operations.[99] This view is supported by certain academics,[100] who opine that all directors are “obliged to obtain at least a general understanding of the business of the company and the effect that a changing economy may have on that business” and to take “reasonable steps to place themselves in a position to guide and monitor the management of the company”.[101]
Climate change is a major factor which impacts businesses today. Specifically, it affects the future activities and directions that companies take. Therefore, according to the duty of reasonable diligence under section 157(1) of the CA, directors must equip themselves with sufficient understanding of what climate change is, what it entails, and how climate change risks will impact company strategy and planning. Consideration of climate change impacts must be factored into the oversight and management of companies. This can take the form of decisions to require mitigatory steps or decisions to adopt policies or practices that address climate change issues. Directors should be sensitive to the risks of actions that can negatively affect the profile and profitability of their companies, especially with regards to ‘stranded assets’.[102]
In light of the Singapore’s pledge under the Paris Agreement as well as obligations under the EPMA and the CPA, as well as the trend of increasing awareness of climate change risks, it would be impossible for directors to be ‘objectively’ unaware that climate change risks could impact their companies. Information about climate change has pierced into the ‘general knowledge’ of society. This means that any director who fails to take into account climate change considerations in their decisions may potentially breach the duty of reasonable diligence under section 157(1) of the CA.[103] Legal action may therefore be brought against the director for causing loss to the company by not considering climate change, which is addressed in more detail below.
B.
SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM
Here, the focus is on shareholders in companies that invest in high-carbon projects and the risk that carbon-intensive assets will become ‘stranded assets’ in light of a shift towards renewable energy and more intense air pollution and carbon emissions regulation.[104] This is relevant to Singapore shareholders and investors given that stranding is likely to have the strongest impact on the coal sector in Asia, where 64% of current and 65% of planned committed emissions are located, mostly in coal-fired generators.[105] Therefore, one way in which concerns over stranding can take form is through activist shareholders applying pressure on company boards, disputing board decisions, and challenging a director’s exercise of his duty of reasonable diligence in authorising projects at risk of becoming “stranded assets”.
For example, shareholders in Japan have fought against coal financing. Major investors in Japan’s Mizuho Financial Group backed a shareholder motion to urge the bank to cut coal financing. This is the first time in Japan that investors, with over USD 200 billion in shares, have launched a shareholder climate change resolution.[106] This represents a possible venue by which shareholders in the corporate sector can indirectly contribute towards the transformation of Singapore’s electricity system. The halting of fossil fuel investments from the general private sector would be a strong economic incentive for power generation companies and other entities relying on fossil fuels to engage in a system transformation through mitigation strategies. This would entail the exploration into the exploitation of renewable energy, particularly of solar PV power, in Singapore. Such a development would reflect the concept of ecological resilience.
Of course, it may be argued that shareholder activism is relatively muted in Singapore.[107] Many would attribute this to the Confucianist culture that pervades Asian company law. The starting point is that 75% of Singaporeans are ethnically Chinese. Consequently, Confucianism is recognised as the basis of social organisation and corporate governance.[108] Confucianism is a virtue ethic and a guide to “proper behaviour”, advocating for a harmonious social order in which everyone knows and observes their proper stations.[109] The core values of filial piety and kinship remain strong among Chinese Singaporeans, especially in interpersonal relationships and work culture.[110] In particular, in corporate governance, the priority of the collective, the avoidance of conflict, and restraint of personal desires are virtues that are promoted.[111] As such, it would seem that shareholder activism in Singapore would have little to no role to play within this Confucianist culture. That being said; however, the action taken by Japan’s Mizuho Financial Group shareholders completely goes against the passive Confucianist and deferential tropes of Japanese company law.[112] Therefore, despite the Confucianist corporate culture in Singapore, the possibility of shareholder activism cannot be discounted.[113]
In addition, Singapore is an extremely open economy and society, increasingly influenced by developments around the world.[114] Specifically, there is an increasing global trend of climate change litigations where affected persons and relevant stakeholders initiate public interest litigation to compel corporations to refrain from decisions or practices that may negatively affect the environment and lead to climate change.[115] In fact, as of May 2021, 1,841 climate change-related litigation claims have been filed, including cases initiated in Asia and among ASEAN Member States.[116] In Singapore, this trend has already impacted the corporate sector. For instance, Singapore’s largest banks have announced that they will “cease financing new coal power projects from 2021” and “will instead tilt toward renewable energy projects such as solar power”.[117] This development highlights that there are increasing expectations on the banking and finance sectors to combat climate change even outside of formal legislation.[118] Such expectations underscore the possibility of shareholder litigation being instituted in Singapore to effect mitigation strategies in the electricity sector, thereby reflecting ecological resilience.
V.
ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS
Singapore’s housing system is unique. Public housing is managed by the Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) and is home to 78.7% of the resident population. These apartments (“HDB apartments”) are owned by the Singapore government and HDB apartment buyers purchase 99-year leases from the government. Private condominiums are home to 16% of the population, while the remainder of the population reside in landed properties.[119]
Given that majority of the Singaporean population reside in either HDB or private condominiums, reformation efforts targeted at these housing groups will be the most impactful. As such, this article examines HDB apartments and condominiums and focuses on legislation with regards to the installation of solar panels. This Part is therefore divided into two sections. The first section explores the legislation for HDB apartments, while the second section considers the relevant strata laws for private condominiums. Both sections will conclude with recommendations for proposed reforms to encourage the systemic decarbonisation of Singapore’s electricity system.
A.
HDB APARTMENTS
The owner of HDB apartments is the Singapore government. HDB apartment buyers are only lessees for 99 years.[120] According to the HDB guidelines, HDB flat buyers are largely allowed to renovate and decorate their flat as desired.[121] However, large installations, such as solar panels, may not be allowed.[122] This is because they may present an obstruction and may pose safety hazards if mounted incorrectly on a window which is directly above a public walkway. Furthermore, even if individual flat buyers were to install solar panels outside of their windows, it would not be energy-efficient or cost-effective. Because of their design, HDB apartments do not get direct sunshine except for on the flat rooftops, common corridors and the open-carparks, all of which are owned by the Singapore government and not individual buyers.[123]
Given the impracticability of individual buyers installing their own solar panels, in 2014, the Singapore government launched SolarNova. This is a government-led programme that aims to accelerate solar deployment and installation in Singapore in government-owned property, particularly on HDB apartment rooftops. SolarNova adopts a solar-leasing model where a private sector company installs, owns, and operates the solar systems and sells electricity to the Singapore government through a long-term power purchase agreement. HDB procures private sector companies by conducting solar tenders.[124] HDB recently called for its sixth tender to install solar panels across 1,198 HDB apartment blocks and 57 government sites. In total, as of December 2020, 2,470 HDB apartment blocks have been installed with solar panels.[125] This has therefore been an effective mitigation strategy in reducing Singapore’s carbon footprint and accelerating the uptake of green energy.
The Singapore government’s SolarNova programme is a great step towards climate mitigation. However, in order to truly achieve system-wide mitigation and ecological resilience in the electricity system, the Singapore government must galvanise electricity consumers through public awareness campaigns that encourage the uptake of energy-efficient appliances such as air-conditioning equipment with lower global warming potential. Public campaigns targeting Singaporean households are nothing new. In fact, Singapore has had many successful campaigns such as the National Dengue Prevention Campaign[126] and the COVID-19 ‘#IGotMyShot’ Vaccination Campaign.[127] Public campaigns encouraging energy-efficient appliance usage and other energy-efficient home initiatives would have a subtle but positive effect on sustainable practices and should not be underestimated.[128]
As a matter of fact, it seems likely that the Singapore government will soon turn to public awareness campaigns to target Singaporean households. This is because, at the date of writing,[129] the Singapore government announced amendments to the EPMA giving “regulatory teeth to existing initiatives to control the release of [greenhouse gases]”.[130] Notably, the amended law will bar the supply of air-conditioning equipment with high global warming potential from 1 October 2022. The Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment, Mr Desmond Tan, said that while cooling is essential in Singapore’s hot and humid climate, Singaporeans must also be mindful about their environmental impact.[131] Specifically, Mr. Tan noted that “[f]or households, there is no cost difference in switching to climate-friendly … air conditioners”.[132] This is because climate-friendly air conditioners are more energy-efficient and so their life-cycle cost savings more than make up for their higher upfront cost.[133] This is a strong incentive that public campaigns should leverage upon to promote energy-efficient homes.
B.
CONDOMINIUMS
Under Singapore strata laws, it is very difficult for renters and owners of condominium apartments to install solar panels. Under section 37(3) of Singapore’s Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 (“BMSMA”),[134] an owner must acquire the consent of the condominium’s management corporation to make certain improvements upon his apartment. Section 37(4)(a) of the BMSMA states that such consent may be granted if the improvement does not detract from the appearance of the building and keeps with the rest of the condominium buildings. With these provisions in mind, it seems very unlikely that a solar panel improvement would meet the requirements needed to acquire the consent of the management corporation. In an analogous case involving the installation of air conditioner compressors, the Singapore High Court held that the compressors were partially installed on the walls that formed part of the common property of the condominium and therefore breached the strata laws by altering the appearance of the façade.[135] Therefore, the strata laws in Singapore do not seem to allow owners of condominiums to mount solar panel installations and contribute towards the uptake of green energy.
In this regard, Queensland’s Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (“BCCMA”)[136] could serve as a model to reform Singapore’s existing strata laws. Under the BCCMA, a body corporate cannot withhold consent for particular activities that might cause the external appearance of a lot to be altered. Such activities include installing solar panels.[137] Consequently, adopting this position in Singapore would be effective in promoting the mitigatory imperative.
VI.
CONCLUSION
The efforts undertaken by Singapore to achieve a climate-resilient electricity system have been remarkable and successful in achieving the adaptation imperative. However, in order to achieve a long-term system-level change that accords with the definition of ecological resilience rather than engineering resilience, more thought must be dedicated to the mitigation imperative and to the role that private actors and communities can play in shaping a resilient electricity system. To this end, this article has proposed five reforms.
First, within the electricity generation regulatory framework, Singapore should adopt resilience as a normative statutory objective and define resilience as ecological resilience. Legislation should be inspired by the EMA resilience improvement cycle as well as the coordination and reporting obligations under the CIR Strategy.
Second, outside of the electricity generation regulatory framework, the Singapore government should develop long-term stimulus packages to boost a well-structured and just transition of power generation companies from LNG to solar PV power.
Third, for electricity distribution, Singapore should enact legislation similar to the EEG in order to oblige SPPA to connect renewable energy technologies to the grid. This would accelerate the decarbonisation of the electricity grid.
Fourth,[138] within the corporate sector, the duty of reasonable diligence under section 157(1) of the CA opens up the possibility for legal shareholder action to be brought against a director for causing loss to the company by not considering or taking mitigatory actions to reduce climate change risks. Although relatively muted, the possibility of shareholder activism cannot be discounted given the increasing global trend of climate change litigation.
Fifth, regarding electricity consumers, the Singapore government should invest into public campaigns which encourage energy-efficient homes. Furthermore, the Singapore strata laws which prevent the installation of solar panels in condominiums should be amended to remove the unreasonable aesthetic restriction on the installation of sustainability measures. Queensland’s BCCMA should be used as a model for such reform.
Resilience must be reimagined to allow a greater scope for a proactive and integrated approach towards electricity law and policy reform. Ecological resilience has the potential to bridge the disconnect between the Singapore government’s aspiration for system-wide resilience in the electricity system and a legal environment that facilitates mitigatory measures to be taken across all-sectors.
* LL.B, National
University of Singapore, Class of 2024. All errors remain my own.
[1] Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative Legal Opinion on Directors’
Responsibilities and Climate Change under Singapore Law by Jeffrey W T Chan, SC (April 2021) at para 6 [Directors’
Responsibilities and Climate Change under Singapore Law].
[2]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global
Warming of 1.5℃ - Summary for Policymakers in Global Warming of 1.5°C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global
Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas
Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the
Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate
Poverty (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2018) at para B.1 [Global Warming of 1.5℃ - Summary for Policymakers].
[3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang (2014) at 1.
[4] Ibid
at 4.
[5] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change
under Singapore Law, supra note
1 at para 10.
[6] Global Warming of 1.5℃ - Summary for Policymakers, supra note 2 at para B.5.
[7] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change
under Singapore Law, supra note
1 at para 11.
[8]
Johnathan Woetzel et al, Climate
Risk and Response: Physical hazards and Socioeconomic Impacts (McKinsey Global
Institute Report, 2020) at 10.
[9]
Benjamin P. Horton, “Commentary: A Decade of Climate Change has had Devastating
Impact. But There’s Hope Yet”, Channel
News Asia (3 January 2021), online: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/climate-change-temperature-sea-level-rise-flood-storm-fire-paris-1340296.
[10] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change
under Singapore Law, supra note
1 at para 21.
[11]
Horton, supra note 9.
[12]
National Environmental Agency, News Release, “Singapore’s Climate 2020: A Year
of Contrasts in Weather” (19 January 2021), online:
<https://www.nea.gov.sg/media/news/news/index/singapore%27s-climate-2020-a-year-of-contrasts-in-weather>
at para 6.
[13] See Jaime Koh, “Major Floods in Singapore”, online: National Library Board, online: <https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=51f13462-3584-4ae9-b2c6-ce72b0775c72 >; Ang Qing, “Heavy Rain in Afternoon Leads to Flash Floods in Several Areas of Singapore and Ffallen Trees”, The Straits Times (3 November 2020), online: <https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/heavy-rain-leads-to-flash-floods-around-singapore>.
[14] Audrey
Tan, “Flash Floods in Singapore on Saturday a Symptom of Climate Change, says
Grace Fu”, The Straits Times (19
April 2021), online:
<https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/flash-floods-on-saturday-a-symptom-of-climate-change-says-grace-fu>.
[15] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change under Singapore Law, supra note 1 at para 22.
[16]
Kavickumar Muruganathan, “Commentary: Air-conditioning – the Unspoken Energy
Guzzler in Singapore”, Channel News Asia (7
September 2020), online:
<https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/air-con-unit-electricity-energy-carbon-emissions-climate-change-1339326>.
[17]
“Singapore, Energy Information
Administration (August 2021), online:
<https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/SGP> [EIA]; Energy
Market Authority, News Release, “The Future of Singapore’s Energy Story” (29
October 2019), online: <https://www.ema.gov.sg/news-events/news/media-releases/2019/the-future-of-singapores-energy-story>
[The Future of Singapore’s Energy Story].
[18]
Navraj Singh Ghaleigh & Louise Burrows, “Reset or Revert in the New Climate
Normal” in Victor V. Ramraj, ed, COVID-19
in Asia: Law and Policy Contexts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020)
425 at 427.
[19]
“Greenhouse Gas Inventory”, National
Environment Agency, online: <https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/climate-change-energy-efficiency/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-inventory>.
[20]
Thomas Duck, “Improving Resilience: Electricity Law, Microgrids and Solar in
the Context of Climate Change” (2020) 37:4 EPLJ 433 at 443; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report on Renewable
Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2012) at 33.
[21] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change
under Singapore Law, supra note
1 at para 24.
[22]
Elnaz Torabi, Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes & Michael Howes, “Adapting or
Maladapting: Building Resilience to Climate-related Disasters in Coastal
Cities” (2018) 72 Cities 295 at
330; Duck, supra note 20 at
443.
[23] EIA, supra note 17; The Future of Singapore’s Energy Story, supra note 17.
[24] Duck, supra note 20 at 444.
[25] Stephanie Niall & Anne Kallies, “Electricity Systems between Climate Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Pressures: Can Legal Frameworks for “Resilience” Provide Answers?” (2017) 34:6 EPLJ 488 at 490.
[26] Ibid.
[27]
Simin Davoudi, “Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End?” (2012) 13:2 Planning Theory & Practice
299.
[28] Ibid at 300.
[29] Ibid
at 301.
[30] Ibid at 300.
[31] Ibid
at 301.
[32] Ibid.
[33]
Niall & Kalllies, supra note 25 at
491.
[34] Ibid
at 495.
[35] Ibid
at 494.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid
at 501.
[40]
“Electricity Market”, Energy Market
Authority, online: < https://www.ema.gov.sg/our-energy-story/energy-market-landscape/electricity
>.
[41]
“Licensees Directory”, Energy Market
Authority, online: <
https://www.ema.gov.sg/regulations-licences/licences/industry-licences >
[Licensees Directory]; Kelvin Wong, Tan Wee Meng & Yeo Boon Kiat,
“Electricity Regulation in Singapore: Overview”, Thomson Reuters Practical Law (1 October 2020), online:
<https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-637-5107>.
[42] Licensees Directory, supra note 41.
[43] Ibid.
[44]
Niall & Kallies, supra note 25 at
501.
[45] Electricity Act 2001 (Cap 89A, 2020 Rev
Ed Sing).
[46] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change
under Singapore Law, supra note
1 at para 27.
[47] Paris Agreement, 22 April 2016, 3156
UNTS 79 (entered into force 4 November 2016).
[48]
“Singapore And International Efforts”, National
Climate Change Secretariat,
online: <https://www.nccs.gov.sg/singapores-climate-action/singapore-and-international-efforts/>.
[49] Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999 (Cap 94A, 2020 Rev Ed Sing) [Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999].
[50] Carbon Pricing Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed
Sing) [Carbon Pricing Act 2018].
[51] Electricity Act 2001 (Cap 89A, 2002 Rev Ed Sing), s 73.
[52] Ibid,
s 74.
[53] Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999, supra note 49, s 11.
[54] Ibid, s 12.
[55] Ibid,
s 16.
[56] Carbon Pricing Act 2018, supra note 50, ss 56-58.
[57]
Louis J. Kotzé, “Earth
System Law for the Anthropocene: Rethinking Environmental Law Alongside the
Earth System Metaphor” (2020) 11:1-2 TLT
75 at 84.
[58] Climate Change Act 2017 (Vic).
[59] Emergency Management Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Resilience) Act 2014 (Vic) [Emergency Management Amendment].
[60] Niall & Kallies, supra note 25 at 497.
[61] Ibid.
[62]
Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources & Ministry of National
Development, Singapore’s Climate Action Plan: A Climate-Resilient Singapore,
For a Sustainable Future (2016).
[63] Ibid
at 30-31.
[64]
Victorian Government, Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy (2015),
online:
<https://files.em.vic.gov.au/EMV-web/Critical-Infrastructure_Resilience_Strategy_Sept-2016.pdf>.
[65] Emergency Management Amendment, supra note 59, s 74D.
[66] Niall & Kallies, supra note 25 at
499.
[67] Emergency Management Amendment (Critical
Infrastructure Resilience) Act 2014 (Vic) s 74J.
[68] Ibid, s 74M.
[69] Niall & Kallies, supra note 25 at 498.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Ibid at 500.
[72] Ibid
at 499.
[73] Ibid at 501.
[74] Ibid
at 502.
[75] The Future of Singapore’s Energy Story, supra note 17.
[76]
EIA, supra note 17.
[77]
“Power Generation”, National Climate
Change Secretariat, online: <https://www.nccs.gov.sg/singapores-climate-action/power-generation/>.
[78] Ibid.
[79]
Ghaleigh & Burrows, supra note 18 at
436.
[80]
Anastasia Telesetsky, “Climate Change, Disaster Law, and Extreme Ocean and
Coastal Events” in Jan McDonald, Jeffrey McGee & Richard Barnes, eds, Research Handbook on Climate Change, Oceans
and Coasts (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020) 174 at 187-188.
[81]
Licensees Directory, supra note 41.
[82]
“Overview”, SP Group, online:
<https://www.spgroup.com.sg/our-services/network/overview>.
[83] Ibid.
[84]
“About The Project”, SP Group, online: <https://www.spgroup.com.sg/cable-tunnel/About%20The%20Project.html>.
[85] Ibid.
[86]
Choo Yun Ting, “SP Group Building South-east Asia’s First Large-scale
Underground Substation in Labrador”, The
Straits Times (6 April 2021), online:
<https://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/sp-group-building-south-east-asias-first-large-scale-underground-substation>.
[87]
SPgroup, News Release, “SP Group Building the First Large-scale Underground
Substation in Southeast Asia” (6 April 2021), online:
<https://www.spgroup.com.sg/about-us/media-resources/news-and-media-releases/SP-Group-building-the-first-large-scale-underground-substation-in-Southeast-Asia>.
[88] Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz [Renewable Energy Sources Act] (Germany).
[89] Ibid, § 8(1).
[90] Ibid, § 19(1).
[91] Duck, supra note 20 at 443; Hannes Kirchhoff et al, “Developing Mutual Success Factors and Their Application to Swarm Electrification: Microgrids with 100% Renewable Energies in the Global South and Germany” (2016) 128 Journal of Cleaner Production 190 at 194.
[92] Hans Tjio, Pearlie Koh & Lee Pey Woan, Corporate Law, 2nd ed (Singapore: Academy Publishing, 2015) at para 09.015.
[93] Companies Act 1967 (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed Sing).
[94] Lim
Weng Kee v Public Prosecutor [2002] 2 SLR(R) 848 (HC) [Lim Weng Kee].
[95] Ibid at [28].
[96] Ibid.
[97]
Tjio, Koh & Lee, supra note 92 at
para 09.030.
[98] Lim
Weng Kee, supra note 94 at
[40].
[99] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change under Singapore Law, supra note 1 at para 47.
[100] Tjio, Koh & Lee, supra note 92.
[101] Ibid at para 09.099.
[102] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change under Singapore Law, supra note 1 at paras 49-50. “Stranded assets” are defined as “investments that are not able to meet a viable economic return and which are likely to see their economic life curtailed due to a combination of technology, regulatory, and/or market changes,” see “Stranded Assets”, Market Forces, online: <https://www.marketforces.org.au/info/key-issues/stranded-assets/>.
[103] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change
under Singapore Law, supra note
1 at paras 52-53.
[104]
Ghaleigh & Burrows, supra note 18 at
440.
[105] Ibid.
[106] Ibid
at 442.
[107] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change
under Singapore Law, supra note
1 at para 57.
[108] Mindy Chen-Wishart, “Legal Transplant and Undue Influence: Lost in Translation or a Working Misunderstanding?” (2013) 62:1 Int’l & Comp LQ 1 at 13.
[109] Ibid.
[110] Ibid
at 14.
[111] Ibid at 20.
[112] Ghaleigh & Burrows, supra note 18 at 442.
[113] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change
under Singapore Law, supra note
1 at para 60.
[114] Ibid
at para 58.
[115] Kristian Cedervall Lauta, Disaster Law (New York: Routledge, 2015), ch 5.
[116]
Joana Setzer & Catherine Higham, Global
Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2021 Snapshot (Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment & Centre for Climate Change
Economics and Policy, July 2021) at 5.
[117]
Kentaro Iwamoto, “Singapore Banks Move to End Southeast Asia’s Coal Addiction”,
Nikkei Asia (8 May 2019), online:
<https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-trends/Singapore-banks-move-to-end-Southeast-Asia-s-coal-addiction2>.
[118] Directors’ Responsibilities and Climate Change
under Singapore Law, supra note
1 at para 70.
[119]
“Households”, Department of Statistics Singapore (18 June 2021), online:
<https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/households/households/latest-data>.
[120] State
Lands Rules (R1, 1994 Rev Ed Sing), r 10.
[121]
“Do I Really Own My HDB Flat?”, gov.sg (9 June 2020), online:
<https://www.gov.sg/article/do-i-really-own-my-hdb-flat>.
[122]
Ryan Ong, “5 Easy Ways to Convert your HDB Flat into a Smart, Green Home”, DBS
(21 April 2021), online:
<https://www.dbs.com/livemore/tech/5-easy-ways-to-convert-your-hdb-flat-into-a-smart-green-home.html>.
[123] Debbie Yong, “HDB Home Owner Installs Solar Panel”, AsiaOne (24 February 2009), online: <https://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20090223-123997.html>.
[124]
“SolarNova”, Housing & Development Board, online:
<https://www.hdb.gov.sg/about-us/our-role/smart-and-sustainable-living/solarnova-page>.
[125] Housing & Development Board, News Release, “HDB Launches Sixth SolarNova Tender with Smart Electrical Sub-meters to Optimise Energy Use” (12 March 2021), online: <https://www.hdb.gov.sg/about-us/news-and-publications/press-releases/12032021-HDB-Launches-Sixth-SolarNova-Tender-with-Smart-Electrical-Sub meters-to-Optimise-Energy-Use>.
[126] National Environmental Agency, News Release, “NEA Launches National Dengue Prevention Campaign – Urging All To Take Dengue Prevention Actions In Lead Up To Peak Dengue Season” (29 April 2021), online: <https://www.nea.gov.sg/media/news/news/index/nea-launches-national-dengue-prevention-campaign-urging-all-to-take-dengue-prevention-actions-in-lead-up-to-peak-dengue-season>.
[127] “COVID-19 Vaccination”, Ministry of Health Singapore, online: <https://www.moh.gov.sg/covid-19/vaccination>.
[128]
Farhana Yamin, “NGOs and International Environmental Law: A Critical Evaluation
of their Roles and Responsibilities” (2001) 10:2 Rev Eur Comp & Int’l Envtl
L 149 at 154.
[129] 13 September 2021.
[130] Audrey Tan, “Environmental Pollution Law Receives Boost to Tackle Climate Change, Noise”, The Straits Times (13 September 2021), online: <https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/proposed-changes-to-law-on-environmental-pollution-will-boost-efforts-to-tackle>.
[131] Ibid.
[132] Ibid.
[133] Ibid.
[134] Building
Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed
Sing).
[135] Choo Kok Lin and another v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2405 [2005] 4 SLR(R) 175 (HC) at [54].
[136] Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld).
[137] Ibid, s 426Q 2(b).
[138] It should be noted that this fourth point is more of a point of observation rather than a point of reformation.