Sun Xueling
Singapore
“We are deploying electric vehicle (EV) chargers in tandem with growing demand, within the constraints of space and electricity. As EV technology is continuously improving, we are also mindful not to overbuild as chargers can become obsolete quickly.”
“I thank Member Dr Choo Pei Ling for raising feedback from her Tengah residents. Currently, two multi-storey car parks in Tengah have EV chargers, and LTA subsidiary, EV-Electric (EVe) Charging Pte Ltd, is in the process of deploying EV chargers in another eight multi-storey car parks in Tengah.”
“The Government targets to deploy 60,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging points by 2030, which comprise 40,000 in public car parks, and 20,000 in private premises. As of March 2026, there are 30,500 EV charging points deployed in Singapore. We are on track to achieving our 2030 target in tandem with the growing demand for EVs.”
“In 2025, about 30% of Build-To-Order (BTO) blocks were completed earlier than their estimated completion dates at the point of flat booking. On average, these blocks were completed about two months earlier.”
“Yes, thank you. We agree with Dr Neo that it is important to bring together the wider ecosystem and we will consult all stakeholders. The Ministry of Transport's immediate focus is to drive the usage of drones more extensively, especially by the public sector and this is because we already have many potential use cases.”
“I thank the Member for her question. Earlier, I mentioned in my reply that the HDB notifies buyers at three junctures. This is to give buyers adequate time to plan. And that is why it is at the one year before, six months before and three months before.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,352 lines we hold for Sun Xueling, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 28.
“As I have briefly mentioned earlier, the Senior Minister of State for Transport had spoken about MOT's and LTA's plans to bring forward the deadline for compliance with UL-2272 standard to 1 July 2020. MOT is also planning for incentives to encourage the replacement and disposal of non-certified PMDs which have been found to be involved in most, if not all, of the recent spate of PMD fires. I strongly encourage PMD users to switch to UL-2272-certified products as soon as possible, even before the deadline, as the required standard has in place some measures to better safeguard fire safety, such as a system for power supply to be cut off once the battery is fully charged. As for what PMD owners can do to prevent fires, we encourage users to adopt good fire safety habits, such as regularly inspecting batteries for signs of damage and corrosion and to avoid leaving charging devices unattended for an extended period of time. We will continue to work with LTA to educate the public on good fire safety habits. I would like to take this opportunity to remind PMD users to be vigilant when charging their devices, not to charge their devices or batteries near combustible materials or along escape paths and not to leave their charging devices unattended for an extended period of time. Other than reviewing and strengthening our laws to ensure the robustness of our fire safety regime, I agree with Ms Anthea Ong that we must harness the power of the community. It is important to focus our efforts in public education and community involvement, to instil good fire safety habits and to help us become a fire-safe community.”
“When SCDF receives feedback on hoarding in homes or the presence of cluttering which may constitute a fire hazard, SCDF will notify HDB or the relevant Town Council and will work with them to rectify the situation as soon as possible. In particular, Town Councils are responsible for the management of the local common areas and they are empowered to take action against recalcitrant offenders. Ms Joan Pereira asked how prepared we are to deal with fires in high-rise residential buildings and how SCDF can work with grassroots organisations in raising public awareness of fire safety. Indeed, taller buildings present greater challenges for firefighting operations. And this is why the Fire Code requires super high-rise residential buildings – buildings with more than 40 storeys – to have refuge floors or temporary holding spaces. These refuge floors serve as safe shelters for evacuees. In addition, such buildings are required to have at least two fire lifts, compared to only one fire lift in most high-rise buildings. Fire lifts can be manually operated by the firefighters and can be used to facilitate the evacuation of the less-abled and the elderly. This addresses questions raised by Ms Anthea Ong and Dr Chia Shi-Lu. To address Ms Joan Pereira's point about working with grassroots organisations, SCDF thus works closely with the grassroots leaders on the Community Emergency and Engagement (C2E) Committees and the Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), so that they are familiar with the fire safety facilities and are able to facilitate evacuation. Several Members have also spoken on the recent spate of fires involving PMDs and the need to enhance the fire safety requirements for such devices.”
“We will continue to encourage eligible households to come on board this scheme. Ms Anthea Ong had also pointed out that households with hearing-impaired occupants will not be alerted by the typical HFADs which give off an audio alarm. To cater to their needs, we will provide these households with HFADs that give visual alerts instead. MHA will also study the need to expand the assistance scheme to broader groups of families and will work with relevant stakeholders to do so. Some Members also commented on the need for fire extinguishers, fire blankets and certified smoke detectors to be made more accessible and affordable and proposed for these to be equipped in all homes. While these are not mandatory, we strongly recommend for homeowners to have them at home. Fire extinguishers, for instance, can be purchased at hardware shops in the malls. To Mr Patrick Tay's question on how the general public can ensure that they are purchasing the right type of extinguisher for their needs, SCDF's website currently includes material on the types of extinguishers and a link to a list of companies registered to perform servicing and maintenance of fire extinguishers. Ms Irene Quay also suggested for a fire safety checklist to be considered for homes. We will take these suggestions into consideration. Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about the fire safety risks arising from hoarding and cluttering of common areas at residential premises. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh also raised this point, in light of our ageing population. SCDF works closely with HDB and the Town Councils to address these problems.”
“If many HFADs are connected to a central fire alarm system, the high frequency of false alarms may cause undue stress and disturbance to the residents. We have considered Mr Patrick Tay's suggestion of imposing charges on homeowners for false alarms. While it may encourage greater care from the homeowners to minimise false alarms, it may also drive other forms of behaviours, such as disconnecting the HFAD from the central fire alarm system, or to completely remove them, so as to avoid false alarms. This will then defeat the purpose of having HFADs in the first place. So, a balanced approach has to be taken. False alarms could be due to reasons, such as non-maintenance of the central fire alarm system, failure of the building owner to request for the alarm system to be temporarily disconnected before engaging in fogging activities, or just simply prank actions by some ill-intentioned persons. Regardless, regular citizens are affected. While we are not mandating that all existing home owners install HFADS in their homes at this point, we strongly encourage our residents to do so. To Ms Joan Pereira's question on whether there is a list of approved HFADs, we do not endorse any particular model, but we recommend that homeowners purchase HFADs with built-in batteries that can last up to 10 years. Some of these HFAD suppliers are listed on SCDF's website. As Ms Irene Quay had highlighted, to support the needy, SCDF is working with HDB and the People's Association to install HFADs for existing flats under the Public Rental Scheme for free. This comes up to about 60,000 flats. Installation in existing flats requires the permission of flat dwellers. So far, 12,000 households have taken up the installation after one year of implementation.”
“We will work with building owners, including HDB, to assess the necessity to put in place additional measures that Members have suggested, such as sprinkler systems, refuge floors for lower rise HDB flats, mandatory smoke detectors and mandatory fire-rated doors, regardless of whether internal or external corridor-facing. We will also keep in mind the potential cost impact on homeowners, should we decide to mandate these requirements, which will require every household to install mandatory fixtures. Households which do not currently have smoke detectors or which do not currently require fire-rated doors can decide to purchase one on their own, for their peace of mind. Several Members asked why HFADs are not mandatory for all existing homes and also suggested for HFADs to be connected to a central fire alarm system. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also spoke about providing support to ensure that private residences have them as well. The purpose of having a HFAD within a residential unit is to provide early warning to the occupants inside the house in the event of a fire, so that they can quickly extinguish the fire or evacuate to safety. While there may be some benefits to having HFADs linked to a central fire alarm system to provide early warning to the other residents, there are also downsides that I think Members should also be made aware of. Given the prevalence of smoke in our daily lives, such as from cooking or fogging activities, HFADs may give off false alarms. To give Members a sense of the potential challenge that we will face with false alarms, SCDF's records showed that for buildings with central fire alarm systems now, there were about 47,000 alarm activations per year, out of which, less than 1% involved a real fire.”
“And each residential unit is designed as a fire compartment to prevent the spread of fire. Also, residents are more familiar with the layout of the place, fire escape routes are more direct and are designed to have adequate ventilation. Over the years, additional infrastructure, such as rising mains and hosereels, have also been installed to aid fire-fighting operations, too. At this point, I would like to reiterate the fire statistics. The number of fires at residential premises has decreased by about 14.5% over the past three years. Our fire fatality rate remains low. We have succeeded in reducing it by half, from 0.15 fatalities per 100,000 population in 2014, to 0.07 in 2018. The concerns that Members have raised regarding the recent increase in number of fires are due to one particular source, that is, PMDs. The Senior Minister of State for Transport has, in the Ministerial Statement, shared how MOT intends to address the fire safety risks of PMDs, through measures like bringing forward the deadline for compliance with the UL-2272 standard to 1 July 2020 and the introduction of a mandatory inspection regime for registered e-scooters. The authorities will also strengthen educational campaigns and outreach programmes on safe charging practices to enhance fire safety at home. We need to nip the problem in the bud to stop the fires at its source. And we thus have to strictly regulate PMDs and their usage so as to minimise fire hazards. That said, MHA and SCDF will continue to evaluate the risk environment, including taking into account our ageing population.”
“The measures include an emergency response plan that serves as a contingency plan for fire emergencies, such as an evacuation plan and the appointment of a fire safety manager to help building owners ensure a fire-safe environment. As Mr Christopher de Souza has highlighted, the definition of "public building" will be amended to refer to any building to which access to the public or a section of the public is allowed. This means that the overcrowding of these buildings, such as places of worship and schools, will constitute a fire hazard and SCDF is empowered to take action to rectify the situation. The definition will also make it clear that even if a building is open to only a specific group of people, it will still be deemed a public building. We have engaged the building owners who are affected by this amendment, and notification letters will be sent after the new law kicks in. We will also work closely with the building owners to implement these measures for the safety of the occupants. Let me now move on to fire safety at residential premises. Members have provided several suggestions on improving the fire safety of residential premises, including the installation of sprinkler systems, fire-rated doors, smoke detectors and central fire alarm systems. Indeed, these are useful fire safety measures that can help prevent the spread of fires or enable early evacuation of residents. MHA and SCDF have considered similar measures in the past and deliberated deeply on the necessity of these measures in the context of our residences. Let me first explain our assessment of the fire safety risk of residential premises that informs our fire safety requirements. Residential premises have a lower occupancy load, compared to industrial and public buildings.”
“To mitigate the risks in the interim, building owners may be required to undertake other measures, such as conducting more fire drills. Dr Chia Shi-Lu spoke of the need to ensure fire safety of buildings and appealed to SCDF to adhere to its high standards. Indeed, the public’s safety is not something we will take lightly. As much as SCDF wants to be flexible and accommodating to the building owners, we assure Members that SCDF scrutinises all proposals and alternative solutions carefully to ensure that fire safety standards are maintained. Ms Joan Pereira asked whether this new power will be used to address the problem of rubbish chute fires. Rubbish chute fires are typically minor and, given the enclosed area where the fire is, have less risk of spreading and a lower threat to human life. In fact, such fires can be easily put out by members of the public. I am heartened to share that in 2018, about 25% of such fires were successfully extinguished by alert members of the public. We will continue to educate members of the public on how to avoid and put out such fires and we will take action against culprits that cause them. Ms Jessica Tan has rightly pointed out that other than the requisite fire safety measures for all buildings, it is also necessary for building owners to be prepared to deal with fire emergencies, such as having fire evacuation plans. That is why SCDF requires public buildings to put in place certain Emergency Preparedness measures to ensure a high level of readiness amongst the occupants to respond and evacuate in the event of a fire.”
“These compartmented rooms can serve as safe shelters for those who are unable to evacuate out of the building while awaiting the arrival of help. We recognise that persons with disabilities and the elderly may also be present at commercial buildings, but they are usually not in high concentration and can be evacuated out of the building with the help of other able-bodied persons. Furthermore, these buildings are equipped with fire lifts, which can be used to evacuate persons with mobility issues. Requiring the installation of compartmented rooms in these other buildings may, therefore, impose unnecessary costs on the building owners. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Christopher de Souza asked how SCDF will help building owners with these upgrades and how much time will be given for them to comply with the requirements. We are mindful that these are occupied buildings and the costs involved can be high if the upgrades required are extensive. We are also conscious of the fact that there may be constraints, such as costs and site limitations, when carrying out upgrading works. SCDF will work with the building owners to assess the timeframe for compliance on a case-by-case basis and are prepared to give building owners up to two years to comply with the requirements. SCDF is also prepared to exercise flexibility to help the building owners meet the requirements. For example, building owners may engage a fire safety engineer to propose alternative solutions to address fire safety risks. If more time is required, building owners may also request for a timeline extension and, if there is a definite plan for sale or redevelopment in the immediate future, SCDF may consider waiving the requirements.”
“We appreciate the timely reminder from Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Sylvia Lim that we need to strike a balance between outsourcing simple enforcement tasks to appointed third-party officers and still having SCDF officers stay connected with the ground conditions and insights. We will ensure that our officers continue to walk the ground and keep a finger on the pulse of the situation. I will now address the comments relating to the proposed power for SCDF to require building owners to install fire safety measures. Several Members spoke about the need to balance between ensuring fire safety standards of the buildings and taking a practical approach to help building owners manage the costs. As mentioned in my earlier speech, we are acutely aware of the cost implications on building owners. SCDF will adopt a calibrated and risk-based approach in identifying buildings for mandatory fire safety upgrades. To answer Ms Sylvia Lim’s question, SCDF has limited these upgrades to buildings that have higher fire safety risks, based on factors, such as the age of the building, its size, as well as the occupant load and profile. Even within this group, building owners will not have to undertake the full suite of upgrades to meet the prevailing Fire Code requirements, but only install selected critical fire safety measures. This will help building owners manage costs. For example, only healthcare institutions will be required to have at least two compartmented rooms on each floor, as highlighted by Dr Chia Shi-Lu. Healthcare institutions have a high concentration of persons with mobility issues, complicating the safe evacuation of all persons out of the building during a fire.”
“SCDF will also conduct training for the third-party vendor and will also be responsible for setting and administering the assessment of these officers. Only officers who meet SCDF’s requirements will be appointed. Third, we have in place safeguards against potential misbehaviours. The appointed third-party officers will be required to don SCDF-approved uniforms and to display SCDF-issued authority cards while on duty. Similar to outsourced inspection officers from the National Environment Agency, LTA and MOM, they will also be required to use body-worn cameras when on duty. The cameras will allow SCDF to investigate any allegations of misbehaviour. To Mr Louis Ng’s question on a reporting mechanism for these officers, SCDF will require them to report to SCDF Headquarters at the start and the end of their duty, to ensure that they are in proper bearing and to check that they have performed their duties properly. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about audits. SCDF will conduct random audit checks on these appointed third-party officers to ensure that they are professional in their discharge of duties. In addition, the appointed third-party officers will be deemed as "public servants" for the purposes of the Penal Code. They will be expected to perform at the standards required of all public servants and be held similarly liable for breaching their public duties. Any person who has been issued with an enforcement notice may appeal to SCDF. Upon review, if the decision made by the third-party officer is assessed to be wrong, SCDF may modify or withdraw the enforcement action that has been made.”
“While most support the move to outsource these tasks, some questions were raised on the selection and training of these third-party officers, as well as the safeguards to prevent potential abuses of power and misbehaviours. This move is intended to allow SCDF to focus its limited resources on higher risk areas, so as to bring about better overall fire safety outcomes. While some inspections and enforcement tasks may be outsourced, I would like to assure Members that SCDF will maintain strong oversight over the work done by these appointed third-party officers. First, only simple checks will be outsourced, such as checking for any obstruction to escape routes and that emergency lights are in working order. As I have mentioned in my earlier speech, there are about 2,000 such inspections annually. At the onset, these third-party officers will only be able to exercise powers limited to evidence collection and in straightforward cases, such as obstructions of fire escape routes, empowered to make enforcement decisions, including the issuance of fire hazard abatement notices. Until we are confident that these officers are competent in their duties, SCDF will continue to issue composition notices and collect fines. And as I mentioned earlier, SCDF is looking to start with a small team of around five third-party officers. Second, the third-party officers will be selected carefully. SCDF will specify the skills and expertise required and consider past experience in public regulatory and enforcement work favourably. I note Mr Melvin Yong’s point on the availability of experienced officers in the Labour Movement, and SCDF can certainly consider them.”
“Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about the audit regime for buildings. SCDF regularly audits and inspects buildings to check that their fire protection systems are in proper working order. If the systems are faulty, SCDF will not renew the building’s Fire Certificate and the building cannot continue to be occupied. With the proposed amendments, in addition to non-renewal of the Fire Certificates, SCDF will have the power to require regulated fire safety products to be tested and for rectification action to be taken for use of non-compliant products. Mr Christopher de Souza also asked if we are enhancing the standards on the processes involving regulated fire safety products. Indeed, we are. For example, SCDF will henceforth require samples of cladding from each project site to be tested, over and above the current annual tests conducted on samples obtained from the warehouses. This ensures that the cladding panels installed at each building are compliant. On this note, I will also address Ms Sylvia Lim’s question on how SCDF had assisted the building owners who were required to rectify the non-compliant claddings arising from the Toh Guan fire. SCDF had worked closely with them in their planning for the rectification works and ensured that, in the interim, fire safety is not compromised. Some building owners requested for more time to complete their rectifications. Where possible, SCDF had accommodated but imposed conditions, such as more frequent fire safety checks, to ensure that their fire protection systems are in working order. Arising from the Toh Guan fire case, other than the cases I have just mentioned, there are no other cases ongoing at the moment. Several Members spoke about the appointment of third-party officers to carry out enforcement tasks on behalf of SCDF.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members who have spoken and for expressing their strong support for the Bill. Members have raised many pertinent points on the importance of enhancing the fire safety of buildings and strengthening SCDF’s regulatory and enforcement powers to ensure that the fire safety regime continues to stay robust and effective for a safer Singapore. I will first respond to the comments pertaining to the amendments to the Fire Safety Act, namely: (a) tighter regulatory control over the supply chain for regulated fire safety products; (b) appointment of third-party officers; and (c) fire safety at public and industrial buildings. I will then discuss the various suggestions Members have made with regard to broader issues relating to fire safety. First, on the topic of tightening regulatory control over the supply chain of regulated fire safety products. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the roles and responsibilities of the supply chain actors and whether the tighter control would increase costs to the industry and building owners. I had earlier spoken on who the supply chain actors are and their respective roles. SCDF has consulted the affected stakeholders and has worked with them to ensure that the due diligence actions required of them are reasonable and practicable. In our view, these actions are not onerous and ought to be done even without the amendments to the Fire Safety Act. For example, certification bodies that certify regulated fire safety products should independently check the validity of the test reports submitted by the suppliers before issuing any Certificate of Conformity (CoC). The amendments serve to crystallise these responsibilities in law and to allow SCDF to take non-compliant parties to task.”
“[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“During the recent Jalan Buroh fire, the alarms at the premises detected the fire and immediately alerted both the fire alarm operator and SCDF. The fire alarm operator quickly confirmed the fire incident and SCDF then dispatched its resources. Given the important role of alarm operators, as well as the projected 2% to 3% annual increase in demand for such services, clause 17 inserts a new Part IIIB on the licensing of persons providing alarm monitoring services. This will allow SCDF to regulate the operators, set minimum service standards and ensure service continuity. Lastly, I will cover proposals that will provide greater clarity to the industry on fire safety requirements. Clause 10 repeals and inserts a new section 20, which requires designated buildings or classes of buildings to have a Fire Certificate in order to be occupied or used. This will provide clarity and consistency for all emergency preparedness requirements. SCDF will provide a one-off notification to owners of buildings that have been newly-designated. In addition, clause 2 amends section 2 to revise the definition of certain terms. For example, the definition of the Fire Code will be amended to make clear that the current version published on SCDF's website is the latest version. An electronic version of the Fire Code which is published on SCDF's website will enable faster updates and facilitate access to the latest Fire Code by the industry. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore’s low fire fatality rate can also be attributed to our robust fire safety regulatory regime, besides the fire-fighting efforts of our SCDF. The amendments I have spelt out are required to ensure that we continue to have an effective regime, thereby ensuring an even safer Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.”
“The fire stations send their officers to conduct scheduled inspections of premises within their jurisdiction, in order to allow the officers to familiarise themselves with the buildings and provide them with an opportunity to engage the owners and occupiers. On the other hand, non-scheduled inspections arise from ad hoc feedback. Annually, there are about 4,000 non-scheduled inspections. Around half involve offences that are straightforward and can be easily established through visual inspections. Examples include obstruction to fire exit staircases and non-maintenance of fire extinguishers. To enable our SCDF officers to focus on more complex enforcement inspections, clause 8 will allow SCDF to appoint suitably-trained individuals to conduct fire safety building inspections and to exercise certain enforcement powers, such as the issuance of Fire Hazard Abatement Notices, for simple and straightforward cases. For a start, SCDF is looking to appoint a small team of around five third-party officers to conduct these tasks. These appointed officers will be deemed to be public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code in their exercise of these powers. SCDF will exercise careful discretion in the scope of work to be outsourced and retain control over all fire safety enforcement actions. SCDF will also implement safeguards, such as random audits, and require appointed officers to wear body-worn cameras when they carry out inspections. This will ensure that the appointed officers conduct their inspections professionally and minimise the risk of any abuse of authority. Next, SCDF relies on third-party fire alarm operators to monitor and verify alarms in higher-risk premises before deploying SCDF's resources.”
“These are: (a) unauthorised change of use of premises which may then render existing fire safety measures in the building to become inadequate; (b) failure of the Fire Safety Engineer to ensure that the engineering solution proposed for the building satisfies fire safety performance requirements; (c) failure of appointed Qualified Persons to supervise fire safety works; (d) failure of appointed Qualified Persons to submit relevant reports and certificates; and (e) failure of the appointed Registered Inspector to inspect and or verify that fire safety works have been completed according to approved plans. The enhanced penalties will be aligned with similar offences under the Fire Safety Act as well as other Acts, such as the Building Control Act and the Planning Act. For example, the penalties for an appointed Registered Inspector who fails to inspect and verify that fire safety works have been completed according to approved plans will be increased from a current maximum fine of $10,000 and/or six months' jail term, to a maximum fine of $100,000 and/or two years' jail term. This was benchmarked to a similar offence of an appointed accredited checker who fails to check detailed structural plans and to verify design calculations under the Building Control Act. I will now explain the fourth set of proposals that will optimise SCDF's capabilities and resources by allowing them to focus on complex areas which pose higher fire safety risks and outsource more routine and straightforward functions. SCDF conducts fire safety enforcement inspections of buildings. These can be categorised into scheduled and non-scheduled inspections.”
“This thus provides SCDF with an additional option of taking immediate prosecutorial action against those responsible for serious fire hazards, rather than being able to only issue a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice. Next, SCDF currently has some powers under the Fire Safety Act to enter premises linked to offences under the Act, to conduct investigations. However, this is not the full suite of powers needed in an investigation. SCDF has to work with the Police to conduct certain tasks, such as to take statements from relevant parties. We will empower SCDF to be able to pursue investigations independently, so as to expedite the investigation process. Clause 7 inserts a new section 8CA, which empowers the Commissioner or an authorised SCDF member to examine persons and require them to attend before SCDF for investigations into any offences under the Act. In addition, clause 6 amends section 8 to empower SCDF to enter any premises to obtain evidence related to the breach of a licensing condition by an alarm monitoring services licensee or to the commission of any offence under the Act. SCDF is the subject matter expert on fire investigations and these amendments will facilitate their investigations under the Act. The Bill also proposes to increase the penalties for five serious offences under the Fire Safety Act.”
“In addition, if the Commissioner has reason to believe that any person is supplying or offering to supply non-compliant fire safety products despite knowing that they are non-compliant, or falsely representing these products to be compliant, he can order the certification body not to issue any more CoCs to this person, including for other products. If the certification body does not comply with SCDF’s orders, the Minister may gazette these products as non-compliant. These new powers, Mr Speaker, will allow SCDF to deem products which SCDF reasonably suspects to have fire safety risks, to be non-compliant, thereby allowing SCDF to use its enforcement levers. I will now talk about SCDF’s investigative and enforcement powers. Apart from non-compliant fire safety products and materials, fire hazards also pose significant risks to public safety. Examples of fire hazards include overcrowding, non-maintenance of fire safety measures and obstruction of fire escape routes. They materially increase the likelihood of fires and the dangers when fires break out. Currently, when dealing with fire hazards, SCDF must first issue a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice and can only take action against the errant parties if they fail to comply with the Notice. Given that some fire hazards may pose serious fire safety risks, clause 9 inserts two new sections. Section 12A will make it an offence for building owners or occupiers to cause or fail to abate or prevent these fire hazards and section 12B will make it an offence for any responsible party to cause any fire safety measure in the premises to not be in proper working order or to cause an obstruction of fire escape routes.”
“Clause 26, therefore, inserts a new Part Five on regulated fire safety products, which will introduce enforcement levers over all actors in the supply chain: (a) the new section 32C makes it an offence for any person to supply a non-compliant fire safety product; (b) the new section 32 makes it an offence for any test laboratory to issue a false test report; (c) the new section 32B makes it an offence for any person who is not an accredited certification body to certify these products and for accredited certification bodies to falsely issue a certificate of conformity; and (d) when non-compliant products find their way into the market or into our buildings, the new section 33A empowers the Commissioner to issue directions to any party with possession, charge or control of the product to recall, cease supply, remove or dispose of the product, as well as to rectify any contravention. In addition, there may be situations where SCDF reasonably suspects certain products or materials to be non-compliant with the required standards. However, SCDF currently only has the power to order building owners to test the products, whereas there are instances where the culpability may lie with the certification body or the CoC holder. The new section 33 will, therefore, empower the Commissioner to require a certification body or a CoC holder to test any fire safety product, including installed products. If the certification body falsely issues a CoC or does not cancel the CoC after knowing that the product does not meet the applicable standards, or if the party refuses to comply with SCDF’s order to test the product, the new section 33B allows the Commissioner to order the certification body to cancel any existing CoCs.”
“However, under the current Fire Safety Act, SCDF can only take limited enforcement actions against some of the parties, for example: (a) the owners and occupiers for failing to appoint an appropriate Qualified Person or Fire Safety Engineer to prepare the required plans and supervise fire safety works; (b) any person who commences or carries out or authorises the commencement or carrying out of fire safety works without the approval of Commissioner, or without the supervision of an appropriate Qualified Person or Fire Safety Engineer; and (c) Qualified Persons, Fire Safety Engineers and Registered Inspectors who do not carry out their responsibilities in ensuring that the fire safety works are in accordance with the Act requirements. We cannot prosecute other parties involved in the supply chain, nor can we issue rectification orders, even if the product has been found to be non-compliant. For example, under the current Act, SCDF is unable to take action against: (a) the manufacturers and suppliers; (b) the test laboratories that issue a false test report; and (c) the certification bodies that issue a CoC that falsely represents that the product meets the required standards.”
“Let me now move on to the second proposal, which seeks to prevent and stop the use of non-compliant regulated fire safety products. To do so, we will tighten controls over the entire supply chain. Let me give the background to this proposal. In May 2017, a fire occurred at an industrial building along Toh Guan Road, which resulted in one fatality. SCDF’s investigations found that the composite panels used as the building’s external cladding were not compliant with the required standards, which contributed to the rapid spread of the fire. SCDF then undertook a comprehensive verification of the fire safety of buildings that could potentially have used similar cladding and found other lapses. We then convened a cladding review panel, which proposed various measures to tighten control over the supply chain. The parties involved in the supply chain for fire safety products include: (a) manufacturers and suppliers; (b) laboratories that test the fire safety performance of the products and issue test reports; (c) certification bodies that review the test reports and issue Certificates of Conformity (CoC) that certify the fire safety performance of the products; and (d) installers of these products. These supply chain actors all have a part to play in making sure that only products and materials that meet SCDF’s prescribed standards in the Fire Code are used for our buildings.”
“SCDF needs to be given these powers to direct such upgrades. To achieve this, clause 10 repeals and re-enacts section 20 and inserts a new section 20A, which will empower the Commissioner of Civil Defence to issue an order to require building owners to install fire safety measures, if these measures are assessed to be necessary for public safety. SCDF is keenly aware that this will impose additional costs on building owners. In exercising this power, SCDF will be judicious and will take a risk-based approach in identifying buildings and the fire safety upgrades that will be required of them. For now, we have identified around 500 buildings. These are mostly commercial, industrial and Government buildings, based on factors, such as the age of the buildings and the profile of the occupants. One example is Ling Kwang Home, which houses elderly residents. The Home was built in 1983, in compliance with the 1982 Fire Code. Since then, newer versions of the Fire Code have introduced additional provisions for healthcare facilities, such as the requirement to have at least two areas of refuge on each floor to facilitate fire evacuation. But as the Home has not undergone A&A works, it has not been subject to these new requirements. For the sake of its residents, the fire safety measures of the Home should be upgraded. SCDF has worked with the Home to identify the critical measures required and I am pleased to share that the Home has voluntarily commenced works, even though the Bill has not been passed yet. Building owners who encounter practical difficulties may approach SCDF to explore options and SCDF may provide flexibility on a case-by-case basis. We will also provide an avenue for appeal.”
“Indeed, in recent years, we have observed developments which give impetus to bringing the Act up to date, among others: (a) an increase in the height of buildings and urban density in Singapore, which makes firefighting operations even more challenging, as well as increase the potential damage from fires; and (b) the introduction of new building materials and products, which may pose higher fire risks. We have, therefore, reviewed the Act, and the amendment Bill will have the following thrusts: one, to enhance the fire safety of buildings in Singapore; two, to increase the accountability of all parties involved in the supply chain for regulated fire safety products; three, to enhance SCDF’s investigative and enforcement powers to prevent and rectify non-compliances; four, to optimise SCDF’s capabilities and resources by allowing them to focus on the areas which present higher fire safety risks, and outsource more routine and straightforward functions; and five, to provide greater clarity to the industry on fire safety standards. Let me now explain the key amendments. I will start with our proposal to enhance the fire safety of buildings in Singapore. Currently, SCDF requires new buildings and buildings undergoing A&A works to conform to the prevailing Fire Code. However, older buildings that have not undergone A&A works are not subject to the latest requirements. Many, therefore, have not upgraded their fire safety measures for a long time. On top of that, some have occupants with reduced mobility, such as the elderly and patients. While these buildings have some measures which provide baseline fire safety, overall, they have a higher fire risk profile. The safety of the occupants and the public who visit such buildings can be enhanced by installing selected upgrades.”
“In comparison, New York’s fire fatality rate was 15 times higher in 2018 and Tokyo’s was nine times higher. That said, we should not be complacent and think we are immune. We would do well to remember the recent blaze at Jalan Buroh, where a fire engulfed a liquid petroleum gas facility about the size of two football fields. One worker perished and two others were hospitalised for burn injuries. The fire also caused significant damage to property. In fact, it could have been worse, given the large amounts of liquid petroleum gas nearby and if not for the valiant response by our SCDF firefighters. Our fire safety regulatory regime plays an important role in preventing fires and mitigating their impact. Let me briefly explain the regime. The Fire Safety Act sets out general provisions related to fire safety, such as various regulatory requirements and the responsibilities of relevant parties, including industry professionals and building owners. There is also a Code of Practice for Fire Precautions in Buildings, simply known as the "Fire Code", which sets out specific fire safety standards that must be complied with when a building is being constructed or when it undergoes addition and alteration (A&A) works. The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) regularly updates the Fire Code. It was most recently updated in May this year. The Fire Safety Act, on the other hand, was last amended in 2016. It is timely for us to review the Act again.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." On 14 June 2017, an ordinary house fire escalated rapidly to an inferno that engulfed the entire Grenfell Tower in London. Firefighters took 60 hours to extinguish the fire. The fire claimed 72 lives, destroyed 151 homes and rendered more than 200 residents homeless. While the inquiry is still ongoing, fire safety experts have discovered many serious fire safety breaches, such as the installation of over 100 non-compliant fire doors and the use of non-compliant external cladding, which contributed to the tragedy. More recently, on 15 April 2019, a fire broke out at the Notre Dame cathedral and spread rapidly. The fire was put out only after three hours of intense firefighting. While the structure was saved, the cathedral’s spire and most of its roof were destroyed and its upper walls severely damaged. Investigations are still ongoing, but it is already evident that the cathedral lacked fundamental fire-prevention safeguards, such as firewalls and sprinkler systems. Some of these safeguards were deliberately omitted due to design considerations and these regulatory decisions are now being called into question in the aftermath of this tragic loss. These devastating incidents remind us of the catastrophic damage that can be caused by fires and the importance of strong regulatory regimes to prevent such tragedies in the first place. In Singapore, our fire fatality rate remains low, as compared with cities, such as Hong Kong, London, New York and Tokyo. We have succeeded in reducing it by half from 0.15 fatalities per 100,000 population in 2014, to 0.07 in 2018.”
“There is a rough guideline. For households with income above $1,500, there are actually many examples of exemptions into public rental that have been given. So, I would not use that as a set principle. If the Member is aware of residents, including single or married parents, who want to apply for a rental flat and he thinks that we may need more information to understand the situation better, then please highlight them to us.”
“No, we do not expect the sibling to house them.”
“I will first answer the Member's second question. To assess an applicant's ability to afford alternative housing, HDB will work out their housing budget, and they will take into account their income, their age relevant to a housing loan, their savings in the Central Provident Fund (CPF) and cash, and whether or not they previously had home ownership. On the Member's other point about siblings, I just wanted to clarify, does he mean whether or not the siblings will house them or does he mean sharing a room with a sibling?”
“MHA will consider these suggestions with the relevant agencies for future reviews.”
“Indeed, this is being done. Traffic Police work with HDB and LTA in the early stages of planning for new estates. Traffic Police assess the likely traffic and pedestrian flow in the new HDB estates and provide advice on the specific locations where enforcement cameras ought to be installed. One recent example is Bidadari New Town where the Traffic Police assessed and decided to install two red-light cameras. Likewise, the Traffic Police provide inputs, where required, to LTA's road safety infrastructure plans. Most recently, the Traffic Police worked with LTA to reduce the speed limits at two Silver Zones from 40 km/h to 30 km/h. Members also made various other suggestions, such as Mr Ang Hin Kee’s suggestion to issue rebates to car dealers who install safety-enabling technologies in their vehicles and provide training for vocational drivers. Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Prof Lim Sun Sun, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Murali Pillai suggested to leverage new technologies, such as urban analytics, ignition-interlock devices and speed limiters. Mr Christopher de Souza suggested providing support for victims of drink-driving accidents. Prof Lim Sun Sun and Ms Joan Pereira also suggested to expedite the installation of Red-Amber-Green arrows at all right-turning junctions. Dr Chia Shi-Lu suggested to restrict offenders’ access to vehicles. Mr Melvin Yong suggested for LTA to consider the installation of countdown timers and to disallow cyclists from bus lanes. Mr Murali Pillai suggested for MOT to tighten the framework such that owners are held responsible for death and injuries arising from their neglect to maintain their vehicles. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for their suggestions. We agree with the Members that a wider approach to ensuring road safety is important.”
“Mr Ang Hin Kee asked to conduct periodic reviews of driving course content and to increase engagement initiatives to raise awareness among different road user groups. We agree. The Traffic Police regularly update the driving course curriculum. It is through these reviews that we have decided to introduce simulator training for all new learner motorists towards the end of the year. This is to allow them to practise safe driving habits in a controlled environment. On engagement, we agree that this is important and MHA and the Traffic Police are working on extending our outreach to as many road users as possible. Dr Chia Shi-Lu spoke about the need to cater to an ageing motorist population. He suggested to make adjustments to our regime, such as customised training and health assessments. We agree. At present, we already have calibrated health checks for motorists. Motorists above the age of 65 are required to undergo and pass a medical examination every three years. Heavy vehicle drivers have added responsibilities and are required to do so every year. We will study Dr Chia Shi-Lu's suggestion. Second, Members recognised the need to explore new solutions and have raised new suggestions to improve road safety. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira suggested to scale road traffic fines according to income, to improve deterrence and allow equity in the administration of justice. We note that some other jurisdictions, such as Finland, have implemented such an income-based system. Other jurisdictions, such as the UK, have piloted trials that were, unfortunately, eventually discontinued. MHA will study the suitability and impact of implementing a similar system. Ms Joan Pereira suggested for the Traffic Police to be involved in the earlier stages of infrastructural road planning.”
“For example, the Traffic Police regularly engage these groups through targeted regular road safety dialogues as well as outreach events, such as the annual Singapore Ride Safe. The Traffic Police also developed the Road Master Test Kit to help elderly road users assess their eyesight, hearing and reaction times and to share safe road use habits with them. Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the need to engage and shape the behaviours of vocational drivers. We agree. And the Traffic Police work closely with agencies, such as MOM, MOT and LTA, to introduce measures for vocational drivers. For example, the Traffic Police work with the Workplace Safety and Health Council to remind heavy vehicle drivers and their employers regularly on the importance of adopting safe driving practices. Under the Workplace Safety and Health Council's Drive Safe, Work Safe campaign, more than 200 heavy vehicle fleet owners have pledged to implement measures to encourage safe driving by their employees. The Traffic Police also engage taxi and private hire car drivers, their companies, as well as the National Taxi Association and the National Private Hire Vehicles Association on safe driving practices. To remind taxi drivers to stay alert and drive safely when they approach high-risk areas, the Traffic Police worked with taxi companies to incorporate the locations of high-risk areas in the Mobile Data Terminals of taxis. Members also spoke about the need to continually update our measures. The Traffic Police and LTA have stepped up enforcement, education and engagement to improve road safety. We conduct periodic reviews to ensure our measures are effective.”
“We have to ensure that our processes are implemented fairly and consistently, a point that the hon Member Ms Rahayu Mahzam also mentioned in her speech. There were also questions on obligations for motorists in accidents involving animals. We will have to balance between animal welfare and the safety of road users. That is why the Bill obligates the motorist to stop only when it is safe to do so. We do not want to be too prescriptive in the law by stating when it is safe or unsafe, as it is not possible to cover all situations and accurately describe when it is safe or unsafe. Similarly, it is not possible to be exhaustive in listing out all the types of animals that motorists should stop for in accidents involving animals. The Police will take a practical approach and the Courts will decide, depending on the facts of the case. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would now like to speak on our wider approach towards road safety. Members spoke on the progress of existing road safety measures and made new suggestions to improve road safety. I will address these issues in turn. First, on existing road safety measures. Members spoke on the need to calibrate our approach to different road user groups. We fully agree. Allow me to explain how we have done so. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the measures that have been taken to target "at-risk" road user groups. Mr Melvin Yong also pointed out the need to educate and engage with motorcyclists as an "at-risk" group. We agree. In recent years, the Traffic Police have identified vulnerable road user groups, such as elderly pedestrians and motorcyclists, and taken an increasingly calibrated approach to working with these different road user groups.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. While Members recognised the importance of enforcement measures to deter irresponsible driving, many also highlighted the need to go beyond enforcement and take a wider approach to ensuring road safety, to make use of other levers, such as education and engagement. Mr Deputy Speaker, we fully agree with these views. I will respond to questions on our regulatory regime, as well as our general approach to road safety. Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mrs Josephine Teo, will then address questions on criminal offences and touch on emerging road traffic issues. First, on our amendments to tighten the regulatory regime against irresponsible driving. On the streamlined licence suspension and revocation process, Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked whether the DCP may have the discretion to extend the notice period before suspension and revocation. The DCP can extend the notice period for suspension, but only for the suspended motorist to attend the DIPS Retraining Course. This is because, in this case, the motorist is taking steps to address his errant behaviour. Thus, where a licensee has indicated to Traffic Police that he intends to take the DIPS Retraining course and the course date is later than the date when the suspension is supposed to take effect, he will have the effective date of the suspension pushed back. This is so that the licensee may complete the course and have the suspension period reduced. It bears remembering that for a motorist to be facing suspension and revocation, he would have committed several offences before, and he would have had opportunities previously to appeal against those offences.”
“Second, if there is reasonable belief that the animal may have an owner, motorists should make attempts to inform the owner or the Police, for example, in road accidents involving dogs that are wearing a collar. Mr Speaker, the second amendment pertains to physical driving licences. Today, Traffic Police no longer rely on physical licences to ascertain an individual's driving qualifications. Traffic Police can access this information backend, using an individual's National Registration Identity Card and date of birth. Therefore, as part of the effort towards digitisation, TP plan to issue physical driving licences to motorists only upon request. Hence, we will amend RTA to remove existing requirements for individuals to surrender their physical licences, if they do not have one. The third amendment pertains to the penalties for riding without a helmet. At present, section 74 of the RTA subjects motorcyclists and pillion riders who do not wear helmets to a fine of up to $200. This penalty is less severe than those of other similar offences in the RTA, such as failing to wear a proper seat belt or making an illegal U-turn, which attract a jail term of up to three months and a fine of up to $1,000. We will raise the penalties for riding without a helmet to the same level. Mr Speaker, the amendments I have outlined will complement the enhanced criminal penalties against irresponsible driving, as well as our overall strategy towards road safety. This Bill will make our roads safer, by increasing deterrence against irresponsible driving.”
“At present, under certain circumstances, a motorist may continue to hold probationary licences for other vehicle classes even though one of his probationary licences has been revoked. This is a gap that should be addressed. Traffic Police expect a motorist to take extra care to drive safely when he is on probation, given his relative inexperience. If he breaches the demerit point threshold for any of his probationary licences, for the safety of other road users, he should no longer be allowed to drive any vehicle for which he holds a probationary licence. The fourth measure is to allow the Courts to consider past compounded road traffic offences as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing a person convicted of a road traffic offence. A person’s record of compounded offences is a useful indicator of his driving behaviour. Mr Speaker, MHA would also like to make three other amendments. The first pertains to the definition of animals, and the obligations of motorists when accidents involving animals occur. The current definition of animals, which is restricted to an exhaustive list of farm animals, such as cattle, horses and dogs, is archaic and not relevant to our context. We will remove this definition, and instead will rely on the general definition of the word. Motorists will be obliged to stop their vehicle, only if it is safe to do so, and render any necessary assistance in accidents involving animals in two scenarios. First, if the body of the animal or carcass is a road safety hazard, motorists should take steps to alert other road users to the obstruction. For example, in road accidents involving wild boars, the carcass is likely to result in some obstruction to vehicles.”
“Secondly, motorists who are liable for their first and second suspensions are offered the opportunity to attend the Driver Improvement Point System Retraining Course, also known as the DIPS Retraining Course, which is a rehabilitation course to help errant motorists relearn and practise safe driving habits. Upon successfully passing the course, motorists will have their suspension periods reduced significantly. Mr Speaker, I would now like to address the second measure, that is, lengthening the licence suspension period for serial offenders. We propose to amend the RTA to allow Traffic Police to suspend an individual’s licence for up to five years, from up to three years currently. To put this in perspective, the upper scale of the suspension applies to very serious serial offenders. For instance, with the change, motorists who are facing their sixth suspension, which is equivalent to accumulating demerit points from at least seven red-light beating offences in a short span of time, will have their licence suspended for four years. Those who are facing their seventh or more suspension will have their licence suspended for five years. As Members can see, these are recalcitrant offenders who are a real danger on the roads to themselves, to other motorists and road users. Subsidiary legislation will be prescribed to stipulate the length of the suspension period based on the number of previous suspensions. That there are drivers who have been slapped with six or more suspensions may sound unbelievable, but I assure you, it is not unheard of. In 2018 alone, there were seven such motorists. I now move to the third measure – revoking all of an individual's probationary licences, as long as any one of them is revoked.”
“Second, for Traffic Police to mete out demerit points to a motorist, one of two conditions must apply. First, the Courts have convicted the motorist of the offence. Or two, the motorist has compounded the offence he is reasonably suspected to have committed. This means that the motorist would have already had a previous opportunity to appeal against these individual offences, by either contesting it in Court or appealing to Traffic Police during an offer of composition, before the demerit points were awarded to him. Third, motorists who are caught committing a road traffic violation also typically have little reason to dispute against the violation. Traffic Police only take enforcement action when there are strong grounds that an offence has been made out. For the majority of offences, the evidence typically comes in the form of photographic or video evidence or by detection from Traffic Police’s enforcement unit. I would also like to speak on appeals in general. A number of affected motorists appeal against suspension or revocation on the basis that they need to drive as part of their job. Actually, if an individual depends on driving to make a living, that is all the more reason for him to drive safely and for him to be off the roads if he is unable or unwilling to do so. Traffic Police, as part of the overall road safety strategy, offer motorists the opportunity to improve their driving behaviour through retraining courses. Firstly, motorists who accumulate more than one-third of the maximum allowable demerit points are offered the opportunity to attend the Safe Driving Course, an early intervention measure for those who have exhibited unsafe driving behaviours. Upon completion of the course, motorists will have four demerit points expunged from their records.”
“By doing so, they drag out the process so that they can continue to drive in the interim. But we need to remember, these are irresponsible drivers who have already been picked up for multiple offences leading to a suspension or revocation. To allow them to continue driving while they drag out the appeal process is to put other motorists at risk. We will amend the RTA to make it clear that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) is allowed to effect licence suspension or revocation four weeks from the date of its notice to the affected motorist. Motorists can still appeal to DCP. The Police, where possible, will process and respond to an appeal within two weeks of receiving the appeal. However, DCP will have the power to suspend or revoke the licence four weeks after the date of its notice, even if the appeal is still being processed. For example, there are cases where the motorist only submits an appeal close to four weeks after receiving the notice. The DCP may still suspend or revoke the licence first and subsequently rescind the suspension or revocation if there are valid grounds to do so. We need to bear in mind that to be facing a suspension or revocation, the errant motorist will already have committed several offences prior. Mr Speaker, at this point, I would like to highlight that Traffic Police only suspend or revoke an individual's licence when there are good reasons to do so. First, a suspension or revocation is imposed only when objective criteria are met. For suspension, this usually happens when the motorist has breached the demerit point threshold of either 24 or 12 points, depending on how many prior suspensions he has had. For revocation, this happens when he is on probation and has clocked more than 12 demerit points.”
“Mr Speaker, Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mrs Josephine Teo, has outlined MHA's rationale behind enhancing criminal penalties for irresponsible driving. I will now be speaking in my capacity as Senior Parliamentary Secretary for MHA and explain the Ministry’s views on the remaining amendments. First, I will cover the measures to tighten the regulatory regime against irresponsible driving; and second, other minor amendments to improve road safety. The Traffic Police operate the Driver Improvement Points System (DIPS). Under this regime, a motorist clocks demerit points when he commits a traffic offence. The more severe the offence, the more demerit points it will attract. Motorists who exceed a stipulated threshold will have their licences suspended. The DIPS regime is a deterrent against risk-taking behaviour that is dangerous to other road users, such as illegal U-turns, speeding and beating red-lights. MHA intends to enhance the DIPS regime to further deter risk-taking behaviour by motorists. There are four key measures. First, to streamline the licence suspension and revocation process; second, to lengthen the licence suspension period for repeat offenders; third, to revoke all of an individual's probationary licences, as long as any one of them is revoked; and fourth, to allow the Courts to consider past compounded road traffic offences as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing a person convicted of a road traffic offence. I will cover each of the measures in turn. First, to streamline the suspension and revocation process. Currently, some errant motorists delay the suspension or revocation of their licences by misusing the appeals mechanism. They file multiple unmerited appeals at different junctures and through different channels.”
“I thank the Member for his repeated mentions about manpower and also earlier, Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan's point. I will take that back to my Ministry and I will also talk to NParks about it. We will see, where possible, how we can work towards achieving the outcome that we want, whether or not it is increasing more manpower or better use of the existing manpower that we have. I think we take the Member's points and we will see how we can work more effectively and efficiently on that. On the point that the Member mentioned about culling, currently, population control measures are undertaken at the Town Council level. I believe that the Town Councils' first option is probably not to cull. I think they have worked very actively with NEA and NParks to enforce, like I mentioned, on pigeon feeders. Any strategy towards managing such local issues would include a variety of different initiatives. And culling is just but one part of it. People normally would much rather not do if they do not have to. NParks is also looking at a variety of other initiatives. The Member has talked about the use of contraceptives before. We are looking into that. So, there are various other measures that we are looking into, things that we are trying out. Indeed, where effective, we will try to roll it out to different communities and see how we can develop a holistic solution towards this issue that we face.”
“I thank the Member for the point she raised. The pilot consists of three parts. I had mentioned enforcement earlier. It also includes community solutioning, which includes putting up educational materials which I am sure the Member has attempted. But also, I guess it is really about house-to-house visits for affected blocks. But I would say that the initial results from this high-rise littering/pigeon feeding pilot in Yio Chu Kang have been quite promising. We would look into it further and see how we can roll it out to different locations. As we understand it, pigeon feeding issues are quite local-based. It depends on the local infrastructure, the demographics of the residents who live in a certain area, certain habits and the interaction between food centres in the local community. So, while we currently seem to have a pilot that has seemed to have worked quite well in Yio Chu Kang, we will probably have to distill it further and work closely with the local Members of Parliament and grassroots advisors to see how we can adapt it for use in the local community.”
“I thank the Member for his two points. Firstly, I would encourage perhaps the Member to share with us where the hotspots are because that would be very helpful in allowing us to concentrate our manpower or the use of cameras and targeted patrols. Because if we know when the pigeon feeder normally comes out, it is easier for us to catch the pigeon feeder in action. So, information such as this from residents, grassroots leaders and the community will be very helpful in allowing us to be more effective in the way we conduct our enforcement. On the second point about increasing penalties, currently, pigeon feeders can be fined up to $500 per offence. So, I think we can put more of this information out. I would also like to share with the Member that there was this high-rise littering/pigeon feeding pilot in Yio Chu Kang that was actually spearheaded by one of my colleagues. On the enforcement front, not only do they deploy cameras to basically enforce and find out who the pigeon feeders are, they also put up captured images of the offenders. So, it is helpful in creating community awareness. They also work with the local Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) to engage vulnerable and/or recalcitrant offenders. Because while we have our fines, and we enforce when we catch – as I mentioned, they can be fined up to $500 per offence – we also find that, sometimes, some of these offenders may have some other issues that they are dealing with. If we are able to work with the community, we can also reach out to the families and friends of these offenders and see how we can deter such behaviour from them.”
“I thank the Member for his two points. On the first point, for our air and land checkpoints, all incoming cargo is scanned. Indeed, for our seaports, there is a large volume that we have. So, selected cargo that is identified during upstream risk assessment will be scanned. I would like to provide maybe more details on how that is done. We have a risk assessment framework that I mentioned earlier. It allows us to target high-risk entities that may be involved in illegal wildlife trade. So, when the Singapore National Single Window for trade declaration, known as TradeNet, receives and processes information declared by traders prior to the arrival or departure of cargo, our risk profiles are applied to this information to identify shipments for further inspection. To ensure that our risk profiles remain current and effective, our enforcement agencies regularly review and update these risk profiles, with information from seizure cases, international reports on illegal wildlife tracking and inhouse seizure analysis. But I take the point that the Member made that if there is better technology available that allows us to scan a greater volume of cargo more effectively and more efficiently, we will definitely do so. And that is why we are conducting the pilot on MMPDS that the Member had mentioned. But as it is a pilot, we will have to work with the vendor to see how we can improve the information set, the details and the data that we gather and see if it is effective. Then, we will look at using it in future.”
“I thank the Member for his three supplementary questions. On the point he made about further use of technology, all cargo currently passing through our checkpoints are subject to risk assessment. In my earlier reply, I had responded as to how our enforcement agencies currently use radiographic scanners and handheld screening devices to ensure that the goods that enter are lawful and legitimate. And we are continually reviewing our enforcement measures and the types of technologies that are available in the market to further improve our efficiency and efficacy at it. In his second question, the Member has asked about whether or not we can work with local tech companies. Indeed, we are open to doing so. So, if the Member is aware of the local tech companies and the products that they have, please feel free to let me know of these contacts and our agencies will follow up with them. Lastly, about increasing manpower at NParks, that is something the NParks management will look at. Annually, they will make their revisions or updates as and when necessary.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I thank the Member for his clarification. I do not agree with what the Member has said. When I spoke about the Chinese character "众" (zhong) or "public", I meant to talk about everyone working together, but the Member insisted on interpreting the character "众" (zhong) as being made up of a big character "人" (ren) or "person" on top. I have stated clearly that the Court is the ultimate adjudicator for what is considered falsehood. Furthermore, when the Minister executes his power under this law, he must satisfy two conditions. First, there must be falsehood. Second, he must prove that public interest is affected. If one really insists on interpreting the character "众" (zhong) as being made up of a "person" on top, with two "people" below, then I think the one on top should represent the Court. I was the one who used the Chinese character "众" (zhong) for illustration. Since I used this as an example and have clearly stated that the Court is the ultimate adjudicator, I can say that in the character "众" (zhong), the "人" (ren) on top represents the Court. Mr Low Thia Khiang also says that "public interest" was not adequately explained in the new Bill, and he is uncomfortable with that. However, I would like to clarify that "public interest" is already covered in existing legislation, and many examples have also been included in the new Bill, so the principles and possible scenarios have been laid out. I mentioned in my speech, that when you explain these principles clearly using examples, it serves as a more meaningful guidance.”
“By giving examples, the broad principles and basis are laid out to provide some kind of guideline that is applicable for different situations. To say in Parliament that the Pioneer Generation Package or the Merdeka Generation Package is a vote-buying tactic by the Minister, is being suspicious of others' good intentions without having proper justifications. So, I do not think that we should engage in such extreme behaviour in a solemn setting like this. We should discuss this very meaningful Bill positively. In conclusion, this new Bill can solve what existing legislations cannot resolve. It is also more tolerant, more refined and more targeted. Singapore is not the only country that is combating online falsehoods. Other countries are also drafting new laws to suppress online falsehoods. Various checks and balances have been put in place within this new Bill to ensure that the Government's executive powers remain in check. Today, our focus is on online falsehood, which should not be confused with conversations by common folk in coffee shops. Online falsehood is a new form of "virus" that requires new, more targeted and more advanced innovative treatment. Let us all work together to counter the harm inflicted on our society by online falsehoods.”
“Therefore, I would like to come back to the Chinese character "众" (zhong) or "public", which is made up of three Chinese characters "人" (ren), or "people". It is symbolic of the need for society to work together to tackle this problem. Only then, can we succeed. Dealing with falsehoods is not only the Minister's responsibility, but also the Court's responsibility, Parliament's responsibility, and every Singaporean's responsibility. The new Bill encourages everyone to cooperate in countering the problem of fake news. At the same time, mechanisms are put in place to ensure that there are checks and balances, so as to avoid side effects. Mr Low Thia Khiang also mentioned earlier that he does not feel confident about delegating a senior Government official to take over the decision-making role of the Minister during elections. I felt upset to hear this and I am sure any civil servant who hears this would be upset, too. As I explained earlier, dealing with falsehoods requires everyone to work together, not just the Minister. This new Bill merely provides a framework. Mr Low Thia Khiang also mentioned a few examples earlier. He was worried that there is a hidden agenda behind this framework by using very broad definitions, it will allow the Government and Ministers to decide for themselves what are public interest and falsehoods to satisfy their personal motives. I would like to clarify this. The Bill does not specify what constitute public interest as we cannot possibly imagine every instance that will harm public interest. The Minister has also explained earlier that these circumstances have not surfaced yet. However, he did give a few examples to illustrate the difference between falsehoods and personal opinion.”