Vivian Balakrishnan
Singapore
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not issue advisories on wait times at overseas airports. Travellers may wish to monitor airline and airport websites, as well as news reports for real-time information on wait times and potential disruptions at specific airports.”
“When the conflict in the Middle East deteriorated and commercial flights were halted in March 2026, the Singapore Government mounted four repatriation flights from Muscat, Riyadh and Jeddah to bring stranded Singaporeans home.”
“The Government has stepped up public engagement to explain our foreign policy fundamentals and responses to key international developments to Singaporeans and to hear their views. We do this through dialogue sessions across segments of society, including students, youths, businesses and community leaders.”
“And the larger point during the Committee of Supply was that precisely, because the world is in such a difficult, prickly, volatile and dangerous state, actually, if we keep our wits about ourselves, we maintain unity and we continue to have this clear eye-realistic, but principled, approach, there are many opportunities for Singapore.”
“Well, in short, I completely agree with you. And that is why we have indeed been hosting these events and in your own capacity as a national athlete and also as an official now, you have seen how it works in practice.”
“Since 2022, about half of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) employees are women. The proportion of women in senior appointments has remained stable at about a quarter. We recognise that overseas postings are disruptive for officers with families, especially female officers who bear greater caregiving responsibilities.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,437 lines we hold for Vivian Balakrishnan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 49.
“2 hectares or more since January 2014 have had to control the peak run-off entering the public drainage system. Developments can achieve this by implementing on-site detention or retention measures in order to reduce the peak run-off, which means, when the rain falls, it does not immediately enter the public drainage system. To date, about 75 developments have submitted plans that have incorporated such on-site features. At the "receptor" level, PUB has raised the requirement levels for platform and crest levels for all new developments and redevelopments since 2011. This is to provide an additional safeguard against future sea level rises. PUB has also been working with specific building owners to provide technical advice on relevant receptor solutions such as flood barriers and road crests, where necessary. In addition to all these structural enhancements, PUB has also instituted measures to help the public better prepare for floods. PUB has a network of 171 water sensors installed in all the major drains and 161 closed circuit televisions (CCTVs) installed at flood-prone areas in order to provide remote monitoring of drain and flood conditions at critical junctions. All this data is available publicly in real time. If you use any of the apps from my Ministry, you will be able to see the video feeds in real time. The drain sensors are tweeted in real time also, if the water levels reach significant points. Since August 2011, PUB has also instituted a free SMS alert system to provide early warnings of heavy rain and rising water levels in canals to members of the public who subscribe to this free service. Our approach to flood management and to tackling storm water at the source, pathways and receptors, has served us well over the last few years.”
“Mdm Speaker, the increasing frequency of high-intensity storms as well as the progressive urbanisation of our landscape has posed challenges for the management of flooding in Singapore. My colleagues in the Public Utilities Board (PUB) have been very busy over the last few years. PUB adopts a comprehensive "source-pathway-receptor" approach to preventing and mitigating floods. This involves measures, first, to reduce the storm water run-off, that is, at the source itself, where the rain falls; second, to enhance drainage capacity, that is, to increase the flow within the drains; and, third, to reduce the flood risks at vulnerable low-lying areas. Since 2011, our drainage design standards have been changed and they have been raised by between 15% and 50%, depending on the size of the catchment. PUB has, therefore, been carrying out an island wide drainage improvement programme to enhance the capacity of all our canals and drains to meet these new standards. That is why many of you would have noticed that there is a lot more work going on in drains, I am sure, even in your own local neighbourhoods over the last three years. In fact, since 2012, drainage improvement works at 187 locations have been completed. Ongoing, currently, is work at another 115 locations, including the Stamford Detention Tank, the Stamford Diversion Canal and the Bukit Timah First Diversion Canal. This year, drainage improvement works in an additional 19 areas will also commence and these include improvement works to Tampines Canal to alleviate flood risks along Tampines Road itself as Page: 21 well as new drainage infrastructure in Marina South to serve upcoming developments in that area. To reduce run-off "at-source", all new developments or redevelopments of 0.”
“From 15 April 2013 to 30 November 2014, the National Environment Agency (NEA) took over 23,900 enforcement actions against smokers who flouted the smoking prohibition law. Of these, some 52% (or about 12,400) were for smoking in the new smoking prohibited areas, namely, common corridors, stairwells and void decks in residential areas, sheltered walkways and linkways, overhead bridges, hospital outdoor compounds and five-metre buffer zones around bus shelters. The offenders were issued fines of $200. Under the law, repeat offenders may be liable to a fine of up to $1,000 if convicted in Court. Before the prohibition took effect on 15 January 2013, NEA had publicised the smoking ban extension in major newspapers, TV and radio, as well as through social media platforms. Posters, banners and "No Smoking" signs had been placed at HDB void decks, staircases and stairwells as reminders. Brochures had also been distributed to smokers through channels, such as retail shops, to inform smokers of the new smoking-prohibited areas. To further extend the outreach efforts, trained volunteers also conducted community patrols to advise smokers in their estates on the smoking prohibition extension during the three-month advisory period at the start of the ban. NEA will continue to ensure compliance with the smoking prohibition law through sustained enforcement and outreach. We will need the support of the community, schools and non-government organisations to safeguard our public health and create a conducive environment for everyone. Page: 128”
“The hawker centres provide all members of our community with affordable food in an informal setting. It is, therefore, important for hawker centres to be barrier-free and easily accessible to all. The National Environment Agency (NEA) will ensure that all new hawker centres will comply with the Building and Construction Authority’s (BCA) Code on Accessibility in the Built Environment 2013. Although existing hawker centres were built prior to the Code being established, NEA has incorporated barrier- Page: 127 free infrastructure into these centres over time, like ramps and wheelchair spaces at tables. Today, all hawker centres meet or exceed BCA’s basic accessibility standards, except for three. Two of these centres will undergo redevelopment and upgrading over the next few years and will meet the accessibility standards when completed. The third – Dunman Food Centre – currently does not meet the standards due to site constraints, but NEA will continue to explore ways to improve the accessibility of this centre.”
“IDA organises various annual programmes, such as Inter-Generation IT Bootcamp and Silver Infocomm Day, to promote IT awareness and adoption. We will study what more we can do, together with the community playing its part. As for SNPO, its key role is to take in perspectives and ideas from different sources and integrate them to ensure that we take a whole-of-Government, whole-of-nation approach to building a Smart Nation. We will refine the targets as we consult and engage more groups.”
“The aim of our Smart Nation Programme is to enhance the quality of life, create more opportunities and strengthen community bonds for all Singaporeans by integrating emerging new technologies into our daily lives. The key focus must be the needs of our people and not just the deployment of interesting technologies. Therefore, it is critical that we engage citizens and the private sector extensively in order to assess the needs of different segments of our society, to identify opportunities and to co-develop innovative solutions in many diverse areas, including healthcare, transport, education, estate management, public services and entrepreneurship. For a start, we intend to focus on how technology can help our seniors, youth and local SMEs. This month, I am meeting a group of seniors who volunteer in the community. This kicks off a series of engagement exercises to reach out to different groups of seniors and their caregivers. We want to understand how best to use technology to serve them better. Similarly, we will engage other segments, including our youths, innovators and the local SMEs. SNPO is working with various agencies, such as SPRING and MOH, on these efforts. Mr Zaqy asked about plans to prepare citizens, especially the less technology-savvy, for the future. Since November 2014, the Skills Future Council, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, has started work to drive the national effort to develop skills for the future. For those who are less technology-savvy, especially the seniors who generally have had less Page: 118 opportunity to pick up IT skills, we have several measures to help them. Volunteer groups and Community Clubs run Silver Infocomm Junctions to help seniors familiarise themselves with IT.”
“NEA takes lapses in food hygiene very seriously. Strict enforcement action will be taken against any errant food retail outlets who do not practise good food hygiene. The penalties for violations of the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations were increased for all categories of food hygiene offences in April 2010. For exposing of cooked food without proper cover and for failing to register assistants, the licensee may be fined up to a maximum of $2,000 upon conviction of the offence. They will also accumulate demerit points for each offence committed and, upon accumulating 12 demerit points within a 12-month period, their licence will be suspended as an additional administrative penalty for two weeks. If the licensee continues to be recalcitrant and practise poor food hygiene practices, their licence may be revoked.”
“NEA was notified of the episode on 24 January 2014 when the tragic incident was also reported in Tamil Murasu. NEA took immediate action by conducting an inspection of the food stall jointly with MOH on the same day. There were no other reported cases implicating this food stall. For public health safety, NEA suspended the stall’s licence on the very same day. Two hygiene lapses were detected – failure to register a food handler and failure to protect food in a covered receptacle. These lapses contravened the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations. The operator was directed to conduct a thorough cleaning of the food stall and for all its food handlers to re-attend the Basic Food Hygiene Course. The suspension was lifted after NEA was satisfied that the licensee had thoroughly cleaned the food stall and food samples and environmental swabs taken from the food stall all tested negative for food-borne pathogens. NEA then sought the Attorney-General's Chambers’ advice and waited for the Coroner’s Inquiry to be completed before pursuing Court action. The findings of the State Coroner were released on 30 October 2014 and reviewed on 31 December 2014. NEA has taken the licensee to Court for the two food hygiene offences and the licensee was fined a total of $1,400 by the Court on 2 December 2014. The licensee has also cancelled her food stall licence after the food court operator terminated her tenancy Page: 114 agreement on 7 November 2014. This episode is a good reminder of the importance for all food stall and food shop operators to practise good food and personal hygiene. NEA currently licenses about 35,000 retail food establishments. There were no other fatalities linked to food poisoning from NEA-licensed premises since 2010.”
“Fishing is allowed at designated sites at Pang Sua Canal and at 10 reservoirs, including Bedok Reservoir, Jurong Lake and Lower Peirce Reservoir. Safety is the paramount consideration. Water levels in our waterways rise rapidly during a heavy storm. On dry days, water is confined to a deeper central channel. As park connectors are often adjacent to waterways, careless fishing along the waterways may pose a risk to others. Protecting the quality of our water supply is another consideration. For example, PUB also prohibits fishing with live baits at our reservoirs. Finally, PUB needs to ensure that our water bodies are shared for multiple recreational uses, such as kayaking and dragon-boating, so that more Singaporeans can enjoy our clean and beautiful waters. These considerations also make global comparisons less meaningful as we are a densely urbanised city-state facing unique conditions with regard to water supply and security given our geography and history. Nevertheless, PUB will continue to review the sites that we can open up for public fishing. Daily surveillance is conducted to curb illegal fishing activities. Those caught fishing outside designated areas or using live baits will be issued a composition fine of $50 on their first offence and $200 on their second offence. Offenders will be prosecuted on subsequent offences and may be fined up to $3,000. PUB has put up signs along its waterways to remind the public not to fish outside of designated areas. We encourage members of the public to call the PUB hotline at 1800-284-6600 should they spot any illegal and unsafe fishing Page: 161 activities. We also appeal to the public to adopt responsible practices and not expose themselves and others to risks by fishing at undesignated places.”
“From September 2013 to September 2014, NEA received feedback on high-rise littering involving 2,200 cases. In most cases, the situation improved following outreach and education efforts by NEA, the Town Councils and grassroots organisations. For persistent high-rise littering cases, NEA deploys surveillance cameras and has identified 169 litterbugs over the same period. Since 2012, NEA has deployed more than 1,500 cameras in HDB estates and apprehended 273 litterbugs. High-rise littering is a safety hazard. We will investigate each case of high-rise littering rigorously to apprehend the culprits who carry out such irresponsible acts.”
“There are a total of 161 stalls at Block 117, Aljunied Avenue 2, hawker centre. This centre is one of 15 leased directly to the stallholders under the Stall Ownership Scheme in 1994. Ownership of these 161 stalls reverted to the Government when the lease for the centre expired in May 2014. The current occupancy rate at this centre is 54% and the 87 occupied stalls comprise 56 cooked food stalls, 11 lock-up stalls and 20 market slab stalls. The 74 unoccupied stalls will be released for open tender in October 2014. Of the 161 stalls, 20 are paying subsidised rents and 67 are paying non-subsidised, that is, market rents. The subsidised rents range from $67 to $192 while the non-subsidised or market rents for the cooked food stalls range from $1,338 to $1,445, and that of market lock-up and slab stalls range from $225 to $696. These market rents are based on evaluation by the professional valuers. The Government allocates vacant stalls in the hawker centres through open tender as this is the fairest method of allocation. The results of recent tenders will form the basis of valuation as undertaken by professional valuers in recommending the market rents for non-subsidised stalls at tenancy renewal. Existing stallholders may choose to tender for the vacant stalls if they believe that this will be advantageous to them, in terms of rent.”
“A legal requisition for drainage interpretation plans is usually made by lawyers acting for clients who are buying a property. Its purpose is to check whether a property is affected by drainage reserves safeguarded by the Government for public purposes. As there are potentially major financial implications for the client, the National Environment Agency (NEA) will need to verify the relevant drainage plans based on comprehensive authoritative records. If the property is affected by drainage reserves, NEA will provide a copy of the relevant drainage plan. If the property is not affected by any Page: 144 drainage reserves, NEA will issue a categorical statement to that effect. To provide this service, NEA needs to maintain an updated database with accurate and comprehensive drainage information for the whole of Singapore. The fee charged is based on the resources required to process the requisitions and maintain the database. This fee has not been increased for more than 10 years and has not kept pace with the costs of providing the service. The revision in September 2014 will bring the fee closer to full cost recovery.”
“In addition to that, there is this element called "ground-truthing", meaning, yes, you can see something from the sky but what you really need is someone with a camera phone on the ground to say that, "This is the fire and this is occurring here and I saw this person". These sorts of information and information gathering, sometimes are best done through a non-government channel. You do not invoke issues of sovereignty and all the other political sensitivities. But, at the same time, sufficient transparency and sufficient information are put in the hands of consumers to apply real pressure on corporate businesses. We need a full menu of options on the table. Not everything is best done through legislation or Government Page: 68 action alone. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 69”
“Before I answer the Member's question, Minister Heng Swee Keat has just pointed out to me that we have defined "entity" to mean a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a corporation or anybody or persons, whether corporate or unincorporated. I think that is quite wide. I hope that addresses Ms Tan Su Shan's earlier query. For Assoc Prof Eugene Tan's point, this Bill has been narrowly scoped. We have focused on transboundary haze pollution emanating from fires from forest or land. We did not go so far as to look at factories, burning oil platforms and the rest of it. The reason we did not is that this Bill, on its own, is already breaking new ground. I am a surgeon; I do not like making large incisions. So, let us be targeted; let us get this surgical operation done. Let us see how this works before we start taking adventures and liberty. I have deliberately scoped this narrowly. The second point is about consumer information. This is something which both product regulators as well as NGOs can collaborate on. I will give you an example of collaboration. For instance, at the ASEAN level, we have been having difficulty operationalising the ASEAN Haze Monitoring System because, from the governments' view, civil servants tend to be very protective of data. They say, "No, we cannot share our official concession maps" or "The maps are not ready." But this has not stopped NGOs like World Resources Institute from publishing maps which it has gained access to, through its own channels, and allowing the creation of platforms which share real-time data from satellites, meteorological data, concession maps and to give people an idea of what is really happening on the ground.”
“We have actually defined "owners" quite broadly in the legislation. You do not just have to be a company that is incorporated. Even unincorporated groups of partnerships or sole proprietorships and all the different legal forms could be held liable. We have taken care to define things very broadly so that you cannot escape simply because you say you are not a company. Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: I would like to ask the Minister two clarifications. First, whether he thinks the Bill is unnecessarily narrow in terms of the scope. It covers only Page: 67 transboundary haze pollution which involves smoke of any land or forest fires. I gave the example of: what if it is water-based and that could come from a commercial entity as well? Secondly, I appreciate the point that civil society could lead in terms of trying to encourage consumers to make ethical purchases. The difficulty for consumers is always a lack of information. I do not know whether the Government has a longer term plan of requiring products to specify the supply chain to demonstrate they come from sustainable sources.”
“I do not think, in our current version of the Bill, that we have provided a specific provision for whistle-blowing. Actually, this is not common at all in our legislation. So, it is not present now. We will review it if such protection is necessary. There are no specific provisions that elevate that penalty for repeat offenders. What we have put in place for criminal liabilities is the maximum cap but the amount will be determined by the judge. For civil liability, as I have said, it is unlimited but determined by the Court.”
“I thank the Member for that query. I do not think the simple insertion of a few clauses into a contract will be a sufficient defence. But I will leave it to the judge in the Court of law to assess whether that controlling entity has really done the best to prevent a fire, or did not know about the actions that led to the fire, or, having known that the haze has being caused, did not take adequate action to put it out. These are issues which have to be settled in Court. I do not think that just having a clause in the contract absolves you of your responsibility and liability. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister: in this Bill, does it provide a whistle-blower provision? For repeat offenders, does the fine remain the same or will there be an increase?”
“For lawyers, presumptions in law are not something which is preferred as a first option. Nevertheless, because this depends on circumstantial evidence at best, we needed to get the balance right between presumptions and, at the same time, providing adequate defences and providing opportunities for the companies to rebut. So, I have no illusions that this is something simple; or that this is something settled once and for all; or that this will guarantee blue skies. There are no guarantees. This year, we have been lucky because the wind has been in our favour. But it is worth reminding this House that, in Malaysia, the air has reached unhealthy levels simply because the wind has been blowing from the south-west. So, the haze from Riau has been going into the Klang Valley and not into Singapore. But if, as in last year, there was a low pressure area in the Philippines which caused the winds to be westerly, we will get hit. So, these are the brutal realities of being "a little red dot". We are in a dynamic, economically growing but difficult region. And I thank Members for their support. 4.46 pm”
“It is useful for Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore to see this as a collective problem and that we are all trying to protect the interests of all our citizens. And the most effective way to do so is to cooperate, to share data and to do so with greater Page: 65 transparency, so that both consumers and governments can put pressure on companies to clean up their act. Just yesterday, before I came to Parliament, I spoke to Minister Agung Laksono, who is the Coordinating Minister for People's Welfare, and he oversees the disaster relief and the firefighting efforts in Indonesia. I called him; I offered a helicopter with firefighting capability, over and above the earlier offer of assistance that we had made in June. He thanked me for it. He has got my mobile phone number and I have got his number. It shows you that there is a lot of behind-the-scenes to-ing and fro-ing, communication and coordination. And you need to understand, therefore, that we have got to keep these channels open, and cooperation is more effective than trying to give a lecture. We must remember that Singapore is a small little red dot. We are price takers, not price makers. We, therefore, have to do our best to protect our sovereignty, to protect the rights of our people, but to do so in a constructive and, hopefully, ultimately, effective way. I want to emphasise that this Bill, as many of you have already alluded to, is not a silver bullet and it is not a complete solution in itself. But it is one step, a novel step, that we are introducing new elements into the law. Even for the decisions, the presumption clauses, we also had to calibrate that very carefully. We have to have presumptions on the validity of maps, on control and indirect control.”
“But I think the larger point that Members have made is that greater transparency and knowing the source of the products and making companies invest in brand equity and, therefore, making them have a stake in ensuring that their supply chains are legitimate and derived from sustainable sources, is one way to apply consumer pressure. That is something which we can encourage but that is something which should be done not just by the Government – in fact, preferably not by the Government – but really by consumer groups, by non-government organisations. And this is more of a kind of grassroots bottom-up approach to apply consumer pressure. I think consumer pressure on commercial companies will have a salutary effect. There were questions also about diplomacy and on cooperative action with Indonesia. I am glad that Members have brought it up because it shows that you also appreciate how difficult the challenge is. The activities are occurring in another foreign, sovereign country much larger than us. Actually, they have rules, they have laws; it is not a shortage of policies or shortage of legislation. The problem is with investigation and enforcement. But having said that, we need to be very careful to respect the sovereignty of our partners and not to engage in merely finger-pointing or finger-wagging exercises. That is why we have always taken a cooperative approach. I shared the Draft Bill with my colleagues from Indonesia. I invited their comments. I cannot take credit for what has been reported so far, but I think what has been reported so far on the views of the incoming administration is something which I welcome.”
“I think this is a far more general principle and I would need to remind the House that the Government does not use criminal fines as a means of taxation. So, that is why, also as a matter of principle, we do not hypothecate fines. So, we do not impose a fine and then say the fines that are collected will be used for a specific purpose. All fines imposed by all Government agencies enter the Government Consolidated Fund. It does not even enter into the revenue stream of the public agencies. So, this is a matter of public policy. I do not think Page: 64 we should change it for the purposes of this Bill. Nevertheless, if we need money to safeguard our population's interest, money to embark on cooperative action, money to work with civil society and other consumer groups, in pursuit of these objectives, we will do so and, if need be, we will come to Parliament and seek approval from you when my Ministry's annual Budget is presented. So, let us not get into this argument about hypothecating fines for specific uses, even if those uses are good. There were questions, I think from Mr Christopher de Souza and also Ms Faizah Jamal and, indeed, many of you, on the role of consumer power. I asked my colleagues in my Ministry, "Please go to the supermarket and identify all the products with palm oil", and they came back and said, "I cannot give you that list because more than half of the products you find on the shelves have palm oil", including, you will be surprised, Swiss chocolates of the highest quality. So, the point is, we should not go on this wild goose chase and say, "I am going to exclude and eliminate all palm oil from our consumer consumption." That is not possible.”
“In fact, the majority of you feel that this $2 million aggregate cap may be insufficient. But I want to make this point, that this is a new legislation, we do not know yet how this will work in practice. We want to be very careful that we do not over-reach or have unrealistic penalties. So, we will start now at this level, but we will review the Act when it comes into effect and assess whether it has sufficient deterrence. It is also worth highlighting that it is not only the criminal penalty that the company will be exposed to but the civil liability, and there is no limit to the civil liability, except what the Court decides to award. So, that could be potentially a much higher sum. Bear in mind that the Bill provides for you to make a claim if there is personal injury or health issues, including if you are a company, even a loss of profits. That computation can be a very large sum. So, let us move cautiously with this level of penalties first and see how we can operationalise the Bill and whether it has the impact that we hope it will have. There were questions, I think from Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, on the possibility of mounting class action suits. Well, I am not a lawyer but I have been informed that, in Singapore, we do not have class action suits. But under Order 15, rule 12 of the Rules of Court, we have "representative action". Where there is more than one person who has the same interest in any proceedings, any one or more of them may represent all in order to commence proceedings. This is pursuant to Order 15, rule 12 of the Rules of Court. I hope Assoc Prof Tan will agree. So, this does provide for our version of collective action in pursuit of civil liabilities. There were questions, I think from Mrs Lina Chiam and Ms Faizah Jamal, about the use of fines.”
“There is also the related question of fairness of the Bill. Some people initially said, "Well, just target the companies with assets in Singapore." After all, they are easier to go after. But that raises the issue of fairness, because if you only expose companies which have a presence in Singapore, are incorporated or listed in Singapore to the potential liabilities of this Act, you will inadvertently or potentially scare such companies from basing themselves in Singapore. And that is not fair and does not make sense. Hence, we have to make sure that this Bill, in its extraterritorial application, also reaches all companies, a level playing field, a level set of liabilities. Foreign investors and local companies that adopt environmentally sustainable practices should not hesitate to set up shop in Singapore. So long as you do the right thing, you are not the target. In fact, what we really want to do is, on one hand, to tilt the playing field against those who are irresponsible but, on the other hand, where a company has done the right thing, is engaged in sustainable practices, you also want to uphold the company, uplift Page: 63 the company and burnish its credentials. Next, there were questions about whether the penalties were sufficient. Members will recall that, in the original version of the Draft Bill, we provided for a criminal penalty of $300,000. The almost unanimous feedback we received then was that this was clearly and grossly insufficient. There was also a suggestion that it should be pegged to the duration of the haze pollution that it has caused. Hence, we changed the formulation to peg it at $100,000 per day, and then impose the limit of $2 million as an aggregate limit. I have heard all the Members loud and clear.”
“For the lawyers in this House, you will also be aware of this principle called the Objective Territorial Principle, which, basically, gives us the right to take action against people whose irresponsible actions elsewhere have caused harm within Singapore. There were also questions on how exactly we are going to apply the extraterritorial provisions. Maybe, it might be best explained by me citing a hypothetical example. For instance, this Bill allows us to act against errant foreign entities and gives us the legal power to serve notices on these entities – and this is an important point – including those with no assets in Singapore and no presence in Singapore. The notice will be served personally on an officer of the entity when the officer or the partner of that entity is within Singapore. NEA will work closely with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), so that we will know when such a person is in Singapore. We will serve the notice to him or her when he or she enters Singapore. Where necessary, the Public Prosecutor could apply for a Court order to require the person to remain in Singapore to assist in investigations. Failure of the entity or of the officers of that entity to furnish information and the documents which we require for investigations – if they fail to furnish information and documents without a reasonable excuse – would be an offence and the officers of such companies who come into Singapore may be charged in Court and be liable, on conviction, to a fine or imprisonment, or both. I think Members of the House will appreciate that this will have a salutary effect on key office-holders and decision-makers of companies, even if those companies have no assets or physical presence in Singapore.”
“In fact, it is noteworthy that in the period from 2000 to 2012 – in the space of 12 years – the area in Indonesia which has been deforested is larger than the entire land area of England. That gives you an idea of the scale of deforestation. So, it is not the small farmer engaged in traditional slash-and-burn cultivation that is the culprit. It is the industrial-scale deforestation in pursuit of profits from plantations and, in particular, palm oil plantation. That is the big elephant in the room. Hence, you will notice in this Bill that we recognise it is a matter of commercial interest and we are targeting the commercial operators who, directly or indirectly, are causing or contributing to or condoning activities which lead to transboundary haze. There were quite valid questions raised on the extraterritorial application of this Bill. I think it was Assoc Prof Eugene Tan who said, well, by definition that we are dealing with transboundary haze, and, therefore, by definition, there has to be an extraterritorial element to it. I think they are valid questions but, first, how does this square with international law? Under international law, states have a sovereign right to exploit their own natural resources, pursuant to their own policies. But states also have a responsibility to ensure that the activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of Page: 62 other states or areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. In other words, yes, there are sovereign rights but there are also responsibilities to your neighbours. This is a principle in international law.”
“Mdm Speaker, I am grateful to all the Members of the House who have spoken. I am gratified that there has been unanimous support for this Bill – from the Nominated Members of Parliament, the Opposition Members of Parliament as well as, of course, the PAP Members of Parliament. Page: 61 I am also gratified by the fact that in all your very thoughtful speeches, it was very clear that you appreciate how difficult it is, both to formulate this Bill as well as, ultimately, to implement and to execute this Bill. I think that is important because it ensures that, at least in this House, we set the expectations right. I will be addressing the points that Members have brought up and I would try to cluster the questions which arose – first, what is the source of the fires; secondly, how will the extraterritorial application work, what do we do about maps, about overlapping concessions, the issue of fairness. There were questions on whether the penalties are sufficient. There were also questions on class action suits and whether we could facilitate the pursuit of civil actions in Court. And there were questions also on how we would utilise the fines and also questions on the role of consumer power, on the role of civil society, on financial institutions and, finally, a very important set of issues on diplomacy and cooperation. So, allow me to address these issues in sequence. And if I miss anything, you can clarify after my formal speech. First, the source of the fires. This is not due to small farmers embarking on slash-and-burn cultivation. Slash-and-burn cultivation has probably been around for several thousand years, but transboundary haze of the severity that we now experience has been around only for the past couple of decades and more so in the last decade.”
“The development plans for the Sungei Road area will only be confirmed after the completion of Jalan Besar MRT station in 2017. Advance notice will be given once the detailed implementation timeline is confirmed. The National Environment Agency (NEA) has advised the vendors to consider alternative plans, including relocating to affordable piece and sundry stalls in hawker centres. NEA, together with the Workforce Development Agency and Social Service Offices, will facilitate the extension of the existing work and financial assistance schemes to those regular vendors who may need such assistance. Page: 126”
“Drains are covered in order to reduce the entry of debris, litter and leaves that may obstruct the free flow of water. All covered drains have maintenance access points for regular cleaning and maintenance. Drains maintained by the Public Utilities Board are cleaned weekly. As a precaution, drains in areas with dengue clusters are cleaned and flushed twice weekly. Town Councils are expected to have similar inspection and cleaning regimes for drains in areas that they are responsible for.”
“This shows the benefits of the public consultation process. To conclude, I would like to reiterate that this Bill is not meant to replace the enforcement actions that should be taken by other countries, but rather to complement their investigative and enforcement efforts. While this legislation is a step in the right direction, it is not a silver bullet. It is only one of a slate of measures that we must put in place in order to tackle the transboundary haze that has plagued our region for many years. I strongly believe that regional cooperation within ASEAN is still a critical pillar of the ultimate solution. Enacting this legislation is just one step to re-align commercial interest. We still need the support and cooperation of many other stakeholders – the foreign governments, the companies, the NGOs and fellow Singaporeans – in order to make this region and Singapore safe from haze pollution. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Page: 92 5.43 pm”
“It is necessary for us to table this Bill to hold such irresponsible entities accountable for their actions. However, I want to be upfront. This Bill will be challenging to implement. You would have noted from the elaboration of the clauses in the Bill, which aims to strike a balance between addressing the difficulties of identifying the culprit while ensuring that the Bill does not over-reach such that companies that are doing the right thing also feel threatened. Many have also told me that this Bill is novel and introduces new legal concepts to our Singapore law which we may not have prior experience to guide us. Therefore, I do not anticipate that we will, immediately or in the near future, have an overwhelming number of prosecutions against companies once the Act comes into force. In fact, I expect NEA to be thorough and to exercise careful judgment when implementing the legislation and when it is time to identify the company that should be subjected to the full consequences of the law. At this point, I would also like to reassure responsible businesses that adopt environmentally sustainable practices that they will have nothing to fear. I am also heartened that in the course of the one-month public consultation exercise that we held in February and March this year, we received much support for this Bill from members of the public and other concerned parties such as academics and NGOs. Even companies that will themselves be subject to the Bill understood our motivations and gave us useful feedback. The feedback from the consultation was used to improve our Bill and I want to thank all those who have contributed to this process. Members of the House would be aware that the version which you have now is different from the version which we first put up months ago.”
“However, the Court will use legal principles and case law to do this and this means that the claimable amount is, in effect, limited by the extent of harm, loss or damage actually suffered by the plaintiff. The civil liability provided for in this Bill will only take effect in relation to haze episodes occurring after the date of coming into force of this Bill. In other words, this Bill will not operate retrospectively. Mdm Speaker, I would like to reiterate the importance of evidence gathering in the process of investigation so as to establish the culpability of the offending entity. This is the reason why the Bill allows us to serve a notice on a body corporate, an unincorporated association or a partnership which does not have any place of business in Singapore, to assist NEA in its investigations under clause 10(3). After giving notice, NEA may enter any building in Singapore and seize or take extracts from copies and documents. Clause 11 of the Bill empowers the Director-General or an authorised officer to examine witnesses and to require their attendance for statement taking. Clause 13 provides immunity for the Director-General and his officers, for anything which is done in good faith and with reasonable care while performing any function or duty under the Bill. Mdm Speaker, it is my Ministry and the NEA's mission to protect the public health of all Singaporeans – public hygiene, food safety and the quality of air and water that we all share. This commitment extends to the mitigation of transboundary haze pollution, even when we have no direct sight of the source. People in the region have been suffering from the bane Page: 91 of haze pollution arising from illegal commercial land and forest clearing through slash-and-burn practices for many decades.”
“Penalties are therefore created under clauses 10(6) and 10(7) for failure to comply with the notice to furnish documents and information required for investigation, or where one wilfully alters, suppresses, destroys or provides false information. The penalties for both offences can be a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment or both. Clause 14 further provides the penalty for obstructing the Director-General of Environmental Protection or any authorised officers Page: 90 during their investigations. Clause 17 allows the Court to penalise any person who failed to comply with the notice to attend Court. Where a Court is satisfied that a person served with a notice intends to leave Singapore, the Court may also by order require the person to remain in Singapore. We hope that these penalties will lead to more cooperative behaviour during the investigation phase. Let me move on now to civil liability. Mdm Speaker, we know that some groups of people especially those with health problems and the operations of some businesses such as those in the tourism industry, can be severely affected by the onset of haze in Singapore. Hence, we need to provide a legal recourse for affected persons in Singapore who have suffered from the haze to seek redress from the responsible party or parties. Clause 6 creates new statutory duties. Where an entity engages in conduct that is in breach of the new statutory duties, this will give rise to a civil claim. Civil damages recoverable under the Bill may include damages for: (a) any personal injury or disease; (b) any mental or physical incapacity; (c) any damage to property; and (d) any economic loss, including loss of profits. There is no stated cap on the liability and the Court will determine the quantum of damages to be awarded.”
“These become the threshold. Both these conditions must hold at the same time. This is a reasonable benchmark, as a PSI of 101 or more reflects air quality in the Unhealthy range or worse. The state will use this information along with satellite data and other meteorological evidence, to determine who may be responsible for causing the haze. In reality, it will be challenging to establish a clear nexus between the transboundary haze affecting Singapore and the responsible parties involved. Any such evidence would be circumstantial at best. To facilitate this, clause 8 therefore provides the necessary legal presumptions to allow the establishment of a causal link through the use of reasonably probative circumstantial evidence with the help of technology, such as high-resolution satellite images and meteorological information at or near the time that the transboundary haze pollution occurs in Singapore. Further presumptions are also provided under clause 8 to facilitate identification of an entity responsible for the haze pollution in Singapore; the establishment of the causal link between an entity that participates in the management of another entity and where the other entity is responsible for the haze pollution in Singapore; and for the identification of the owner or occupier of land through maps from recognised sources. All these presumptions are assumed to be true until the contrary is proved. The use of rebuttable presumptions has precedents in Singapore law and their inclusion here paves the way for Singapore to use the new law effectively to deter and to hold companies accountable. Similarly, NEA must be given effective investigative powers to establish a case.”
“Similarly, it is also an offence for an entity to indirectly cause or contribute to haze pollution in Singapore through its participation in the management of another entity which owns or occupies land outside Singapore and where that other entity engages in conduct, or engages in conduct that condones the conduct of another, which causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore. The penalty for the offence is a fine not exceeding $100,000 for every day or part thereof that there is haze pollution in Singapore arising from that entity's conduct. The maximum aggregate fine that can be imposed under this clause is capped at $2 million. The fine's per-day formula is intended to disincentivise an entity from continuing its errant conduct and to incentivise it to put out any fires within its jurisdiction at the earliest possible time so as to mitigate the adverse impact any prolonged haze might bring. Page: 89 Similarly, an entity which fails to comply with the preventive measures notice given in relation to that haze pollution in Singapore would be liable to an additional fine not exceeding $50,000 for every day or part thereof that the entity failed to comply with the preventive measures notice. In our public consultation exercise of the Bill, we received strong support for a penalty regime that would place a substantial financial penalty on the errant entity, in order to act as an effective counter against the very strong economic motivations of the companies. To give greater clarity as to when an offence is deemed to have occurred under the Bill and its regulations, we will define this as when the air quality in any part of Singapore reaches a Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) of 101 or higher; and that this has lasted for a continuous period of 24 hours or longer.”
“Therefore, the defences stipulated under clause 7(2) and 7(4) of this Bill cannot be used by the accused or defendant if the haze pollution was caused or contributed by his or her employee or agent, or any person and the person's employees that have been engaged, directly or indirectly, by the accused to carry out work on the land that the accused owns or occupies. The defences in clause 7 also cannot be used by any person who has a customary right under the foreign law over the foreign land with whom the accused or defendant has an agreement or arrangement that relates to any farming operations or forestry operations. However, clause 7(2) and 7(4) provide that it shall be a defence if it is proved that the conduct which caused or contributed to the transboundary haze pollution was by any other person. Clause 7(1) is also available to owners, occupiers and operators if they can prove that the haze pollution is caused solely by grave natural disaster or an act of war. I will move on now to the criminalisation of offences. The Bill criminalises acts in relation to any conduct carried out in Singapore or outside Singapore which causes or contributes to any haze pollution within Singapore. Mdm Speaker, in what follows, I will outline the details of the criminal penalties provided under this Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the offences in the Bill which seeks to deter entities from being involved in activities which cause or contribute to haze pollution. It is an offence if an entity engages in conduct, whether in or outside Singapore, or engages in conduct that condones any conduct of another, again, whether in or outside Singapore, that causes or contributes to any haze pollution within Singapore.”
“To avoid liability, such an individual must prove that the offence was committed without his consent, connivance or privity. He must also prove that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence as he ought to have exercised. Some countries have a more complex land holding and control system and land ownership may not be confined literally to mean the physical ownership of land. We have, therefore, in clause 2 defined "owner" broadly, taking into account the different ways of land holding and control in other foreign countries and territories. The definition is not exhaustive, but mentions specifically any person who holds a valid lease, licence, permit, concession or other similar authorisation from a foreign government , as regards land in that foreign State or territory, for the purpose of farming or forestry operations on that land. The definition also covers any person who has an agreement or arrangement with another person who is the supposed "owner" of such land, where ownership is the broad definition as described before. I apologise for the substantial amount of legalese, but I need to make this point because, sometimes, ownership and control structures can be complex. And our law has to be Page: 88 sufficiently comprehensive to catch all relevant culprits. Let me move on to defences. The Bill needs to take into account the complex land ownership structure in overseas countries and commercial relationships in this space.”
“This exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction under this Bill is in line with international law, specifically the objective territorial principle. Mdm Speaker, in order to allow the Bill to have a deeper reach to the real perpetrators behind any land and forest fire overseas that leads to haze pollution in Singapore, this Bill has been designed to catch entities that are directly or indirectly involved in slash-and-burn activities overseas that result in haze pollution in Singapore. In short, a party does not need to have started the fire itself in order to be held liable for the act. A party would be liable if it participates in the management of the actual offending party. That is what I referred to as the second entity. Clause 3 lists out the three circumstances when an entity is regarded under the Bill to have participated in the management of another entity. By participating, we mean the entity is (a) being involved in the management or operational affairs of the second entity, (b) exercising decision-making control over any business decision by the second entity, or (c) exercising control at a level comparable to that exercised by a manager of the second entity. In order to make it clear, the Bill defines an entity as a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation or other body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate. As I have stated earlier, the root of the transboundary haze pollution problem is companies that burn forests and engage in unsustainable degradation of land. That said, where offences are committed by a body corporate, an unincorporated association or a partnership, clause 16 of the Bill will hold individuals in positions of responsibility liable for offences committed by such entities.”
“It is also an offence if an entity participates in the management of another entity which owns or occupies land overseas, and that other entity engages in conduct, or engages in conduct that condones the conduct of another, which causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore. Secondly, it creates a new statutory duty for an entity not to engage in conduct, and not to engage in conduct that condones the conduct of another which causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore. There is also a statutory duty for an entity, which participates in the management of another entity which owns or occupies land overseas, to ensure that the foreign entity does not engage in conduct, and does not engage in conduct that condones the conduct of another, which causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore. Thirdly, this legislation creates a liability regime making such entities and their officers who had played a part in the proscribed conduct, liable to pay compensation for such conduct which have caused or contributed to transboundary haze pollution within Singapore, resulting in harm to any person, property or the environment here. Mdm Speaker, I shall now highlight the key features and provisions of this Bill. This Bill is designed to apply to entities whose conduct causes or contributes to transboundary haze pollution in Singapore, regardless of whether these entities have a connection to Singapore. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for such extraterritorial reach. Page: 87 Let me assure the Members of this House that this is not something that we enter into lightly. Because we are addressing transboundary haze pollution, an extraterritorial approach is necessary for the law to be effective.”
“There is inadequate enforcement on the ground to deter such illegal land clearing and we, in Singapore, cannot simply wait and wishfully hope that the problem will be resolved on its own. The Singapore Government, and, I hope, this House, would want to send a strong signal that we will not tolerate the actions of errant companies that harm our environment and put at risk the health of our citizens. We have, therefore, tabled this Bill to introduce a new Transboundary Haze Pollution Act. This legislation will make it an offence for any entity – Singaporean or non-Singaporean – to cause or to contribute to transboundary haze pollution in Singapore. This Bill is not Page: 86 intended to replace the laws and enforcement actions of other countries, but it is to complement the efforts of other countries to hold companies to account. Given the very strong economic incentives today for companies to adopt the cheapest methods of clearing land for plantations, we need to tilt the playing field in favour of companies that do the right and responsible thing and deter the companies that do the wrong and irresponsible thing. We must not allow companies to ignore the environmental and health impacts of their actions. Our transboundary haze pollution legislation will add to the slate of deterrence measures by enabling us to hold these companies accountable for their irresponsible behaviour and will send the signal that we will not tolerate such misconduct. Specifically, the following are the objectives of the Bill. First, it creates an offence for an entity to engage in conduct, or to engage in conduct that condones the conduct of another entity, which causes or contributes to haze pollution in Singapore.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Transboundary haze pollution has been a perennial problem in the region for the past two or more decades. The root of this problem is misaligned commercial interests where companies burn forests and engage in unsustainable degradation of land in order to maximise short-term profits. It is clear that it is only in the recent decades, when the presence and operations of companies in the region's forests and lands have grown significantly, especially oil palm plantations, that the haze situation has become much more severe and widespread. I would like to point out that the main victims of this man-made disaster who have suffered the most are the local indigenous people living in and directly adjacent to forests that are being burnt. We, in Singapore, are, in a sense, secondary victims, but the damage to our health and economy is real and significant. The persistence of this problem in this region despite the obvious harm shows the enormity of the challenge. There is therefore an urgent need for governments, non-governmental organisations, responsible companies and local communities to collaborate more effectively, to insist on transparency and to pursue investigations in order to hold the culprits accountable for their actions and for effective enforcement actions. The question is: why are we now enacting the Transboundary Haze Pollution legislation? After all, do the countries in whose forests are being burned not already have their own laws? The reality is that it is not a lack of laws. It is a lack of enforcement action.”
“Again, these are very, very early days. I think they are only in Phase 1 trials, which means establishing whether it is safe or not. They have not gone on to prove efficacy, that means whether it is effective. I am glad that we have a reasonably good research, scientific and medical community in Singapore which is focused on this. But I want to say that it would be premature to conclude that we can rely on vaccines and anti-viral medications to solve our problems. For the foreseeable future, which is for now and for the next couple of years, we need to all work Page: 42 hard on the ground to eliminate mosquito breeding.”
“I thank the Member for that question and I beg the indulgence to give a bit of medical details. First, on the vaccine. The media reports were about the Sanofi vaccines. A multi-centre Phase 3 trial was conducted in children in various parts of Southeast Asia. It showed some promise, but to be honest with you, my frank opinion is that it is not good enough. Why do I say that? It showed reasonable effectiveness – about 75% for Type 3 and Type 4 serotypes of dengue. Against Type 1, which is the current problem we are having, it was only about 50% effective. Against Type 2, it was only about 35% effective. Those rates of efficacy are not, in my opinion, good enough. There is a further theoretical risk with incomplete vaccination. The theoretical risk is that if you have had prior infection, or if you have prior immunity to one of the four serotypes and you get a second infection with a different serotype, there is a theoretical risk of you having a higher chance of contracting hemorrhagic fever or shock syndrome. Until further clinical data is available for us to be sure that the benefits outweigh the risks, I do not think MOH and HSA will rush into approving the vaccine. I think the precautionary principle has to apply and that is why, although I agree with the Member, the long-term solution to dengue is a vaccine. We need to spend more work to get the right vaccine out there and then assure ourselves that it is safe before we can issue it. In the meantime, it is the hard, laborious work of source-eradication and the hard work that our officers embark on. The other report the Member referred to was the use of this anti-viral material called Celgosivir, which is derived from a plant. In fact, some of our local researchers have done some studies on that.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for that question. First, there is a training regime. In fact, all the workers engaged in vector control have to be licensed and we have to ensure that methods which they are using are safe for themselves – because they will be exposed to chemicals – as well as for the residents nearby. So, there is a regime in place. I take the Member's first point about whether there should be greater transparency. So, if we find mosquito breeding in construction sites, we must know who the developer is, who the contractor is, who the subcontractors are and which vector control companies are Page: 41 involved. I think this is something worth studying in greater detail.”
“I think that is a reasonable suggestion, which I will study. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider making known the list of pest control companies that are involved in the construction sites that have been found to be breeding mosquitoes. This is something like a black list so that people will know who are the ones who did not do their jobs well. They are supposed to check every week and take action. Secondly, these pest control companies use a lot of low-skilled and foreign workers. I wonder what is the training regime for these workers. Is there constant training for these workers to do their job right?”
“I think the Member is asking to go beyond that. For a resident to be able to claim medical fees or indeed, compensation from an errant contractor, this is going to be far more problematic, because you would have to establish that it was failure to maintain proper housekeeping which led to that particular population of mosquitoes, which then were the key vector that resulted in infection in this specific individual. That is a much harder level of proof. I am not aware of any case that has yet succeeded in Court. Page: 40 I need to emphasise that even if the breeding or the infection has been amplified in a construction site, in order for it to keep going, it requires that there was breeding of mosquitoes in the surrounding residential homes. So, again, it brings us back to the point that we all need to exercise vigilance in our own homes. It is not enough to just point fingers at the contractors, or indeed, just to point fingers at your neighbours. We all need to do our part, and if we all do our part, I think we can make a difference.”
“I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. Let me deal with the latter one, which is what more can we do in our homes? In fact, you have hit the nail on the head, that it is often the areas which we take for granted, that are literally right in front of us, that we miss. Therefore, it calls for us to first, be aware, and I think the Member is right, people are aware that they are confronting a major epidemic. But to translate that awareness into regular actions in our homes, systematically comb through and look for those breeding sites, that part is much harder, because it requires everyone to do it. We can have 850 officers, we can have 1.9 million inspections in seven to eight months, but it is not possible for NEA officers to be everywhere all the time. So, this is where I really require the assistance and the support of homeowners, contractors, Town Council officers and indeed all the Members in this House as well. One factor which we have found that helps is that the Member of Parliament takes a serious interest in this – walks the ground and mobilises people, to look in their own neighbourhoods, in the common corridors, in their homes. It does make a difference. I do not have any magic bullets; I do not have any easy solutions, but I need the cooperation of everyone in this House and indeed all Singaporeans. The first supplementary question was on what further legal sanctions are available against errant contractors. First, let me put it this way: we have a legal regime. If they are breeding mosquitoes, we will hold them liable, we take them to court, we prosecute them. The standard of proof needed is as long as I can show that they were breeding mosquitoes, that should be sufficient for me to secure a conviction.”
“Hence, we are currently studying the feasibility of using such Wolbachia-infected male Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in order to suppress the overall population of mosquitoes in Singapore. I have appointed a Dengue Expert Advisory Panel which consists of both international and local experts to provide scientific advice to us on the safety and effectiveness of this technique in our local context. But as this is a novel biological intervention, I want to give you the assurance that we will not embark on field trials unless it is very clear that safety can be totally assured. NEA also works closely with HSA to monitor the development of dengue vaccines and I think there has been some publicity on this recently. In fact, according to media reports, Sanofi, which is a pharmaceutical firm, has been conducting Phase 3 clinical trials in Southeast Asia. HSA will review the Sanofi vaccine with the appropriate experts when Sanofi applies for approval to market their vaccines later on. Once the vaccine has been approved and registered, it will then become available through the medical clinics and hospitals. However, I also want to caveat this point – that we will not approve vaccines unless we are sure it is safe and effective. I want to end by saying that our NEA officers – every day, there are about 850 of them going around homes – they have been working very hard on the ground to create a safe environment for Singaporeans. I want to thank all the NEA officers. And I urge everyone here and outside this Chamber to support the officers and to do whatever they can and whatever we can, in order to protect ourselves and our loved ones from dengue.”
“As Mr Zaqy Mohamad has noted, poor housekeeping at construction sites poses a dengue risk to both their own workers onsite, as well as residents in sites adjacent to the construction site. NEA has therefore increased inspections and taken stringent enforcement action against errant contractors whose sites breed mosquitoes. Sixty-two Stop Work Orders have been issued this year alone; 14 contractors have been prosecuted in Court and are liable for a maximum fine of $20,000 for the first conviction. Penalties have also been levied on homeowners, Town Councils and other landowners whenever breeding is found within their premises for which they are responsible. The fines levied this year have ranged from $200 for a home owner, all the way to $39,000 for a construction contractor. We will study Page: 38 the suggestion, which some Members have put up, for us to increase penalties further. However, all Singaporeans must also continue to stay vigilant and we must keep our homes free of breeding habitats. We have found more than 4,000 breeding habitats in residential premises this year alone, in the first seven months and this shows that there is frankly, still quite a lot more that we can all do to reduce the risk for our own families and our neighbours. NEA's Environmental Health Institute (EHI) is also working closely with international and local researchers to develop and evaluate new tools and new strategies to deal with dengue. One interesting proposal which we are studying right now utilises the Wolbachia bacteria. When a male mosquito infected with Wolbachia bacteria mates with a female mosquito, no viable progeny is produced.”
“There have been more than 12,000 reported dengue cases so far this year in Singapore. This current epidemic has actually been ongoing since 2013 and it is driven primarily by three factors. First, we experienced a switch in the predominant dengue serotype. Currently, it is dengue serotype Type 1. This dengue Type 1 virus spreads more rapidly than the other strains in Singapore and, in fact, now accounts for about 90% of all current infections. It is at a historic high. The second factor is that our population, in general, lacks immunity to dengue infection. This is a paradoxical result of our previous success, as a cumulatively low incidence of dengue in the past means, by definition, most of us would not have had prior exposure and, therefore, lack immunity. Third, the mosquito Aedes aegypti is still endemic in Singapore in spite of all our efforts over the past decades. The dengue risk is amplified during the current hot season and this is because in times when the weather is hot, the maturation cycle of the mosquito accelerates and there is also a shorter incubation period of the dengue virus within the mosquito itself. Data from the National Environment Agency's (NEA's) 3,000 gravitraps which we have deployed island-wide has also shown a doubling in the population of adult Aedes aegypti mosquitoes since May 2014. Consequently, source eradication, or the elimination of mosquito breeding, remains our primary strategy. This year alone, NEA has conducted more than 1.9 million house or premise inspections and deployed more than 1,000 gravitraps in dengue clusters for mosquito-control purposes, in addition to regular fogging and space-spraying in certain hotspots.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 16, 17 and 18 together, please?”