Civil Defence and Other Matters Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

1.30 pm

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "that the Bill be now read a Second time".

The Civil Defence Act, or CD Act, provides for the establishment, maintenance and discipline of the Singapore Civil Defence Force, or SCDF.

This Bill seeks to amend the CD Act to achieve three objectives: first, to enhance SCDF’s operational response and efficiency; second, to codify the powers and protection that SCDF officers need to do their work effectively; third, to strengthen SCDF’s disciplinary and human resource processes.

The Bill will also amend legislation pertaining to other Home Team Departments, or HTDs, where a similar change is being proposed for the CD Act. These amendments will allow the Ministry of Home Affairs to standardise certain policies across the different HTDs.

In this speech, I will be using the term “SCDF officers” to refer to SCDF regulars, national servicemen and volunteers of all ranks.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now elaborate on the key amendments.

On the first objective of enhancing operational response and efficiency, let me start with the proposals related to SCDF’s Public Warning System (PWS).

The PWS is a network of outdoor sirens located on roof-tops throughout Singapore. The sirens provide warning of threats such as aerial bombardments, natural disasters, terror attacks and other home-front emergencies. They alert members of the public to take actions to keep themselves and their loved ones safe.

Many public warning sirens are located on HDB blocks or other Government-owned buildings. Some have to be installed on privately-owned buildings. Today, SCDF gets permission from building owners before the sirens are installed on their premises. Unfortunately, there have been occasions where permission is not granted.

Some owners cite concerns about noise pollution, even though the sirens are typically sounded for only about six minutes in total in any year, and only during the day. Others tell us bluntly that they are not obliged to cooperate, since there is no law that requires them to.

As a result of their refusal to cooperate, SCDF has to look for alternative locations. But this may lead to sub-optimal placement of the sirens, which may result in members of the public in some areas not being able to hear the sirens as well. More sirens may even have to be installed to ensure sufficient reach, at increased costs to the public.

Mr Deputy Speaker, an effective PWS is critical to save lives in times of emergency. We cannot allow public safety to be compromised.

New section 103B inserted by clause 20 of the Bill will therefore make it an offence for building owners to not comply with a direction from Commissioner SCDF to provide SCDF with space and access to the premises, for the installation of prescribed civil defence emergency devices such as PWS sirens. Non-compliant building owners will be liable for a fine of up to $10,000 and an imprisonment term of up to three years, as well as a further fine of up to $1,000 for each day of non-compliance after conviction.

New section 103C inserted by clause 20 will also provide SCDF with the power to enter premises to conduct assessment, maintenance and repair work for the devices. New section 103D provides that any wilful removal, destruction, damage or tampering of the devices will be an offence. An offender is liable for a fine of up to $50,000 and an imprisonment term of up to three years.

These penalties are aligned to those for similar offences involving telecommunications equipment under the Telecommunications Act.

SCDF plans to enhance the PWS in the coming years, by installing new types of public warning devices, such as equipment that broadcasts emergency alerts within buildings. New section 103B read with the new definition of “prescribed civil defence emergency device” also allows SCDF to require building owners to allow SCDF to install devices for the monitoring or detection of a civil defence emergency. The types of devices will be set out in the regulations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to assure members that SCDF’s preferred approach remains to work with building owners to come to mutually acceptable arrangements.

The PWS is a long-term initiative, and we hope that building owners recognise the importance of PWS and come on board willingly. Legal action will be taken only as a last resort, against building owners who refuse to cooperate for no good reason.

Next, I will speak about SCDF’s ambulance services. They are formally known as Emergency Medical Services, or EMS.

In 2017, SCDF attended to some 165,000 EMS patients. SCDF was unable to confirm the identities of about 8 percent, or 14,000, of them. Typically, these patients were unconscious or unresponsive, and did not carry identification documents.

If such patients could have been identified, the ambulance crew would have been able to expeditiously obtain the relevant health information from the Ministry of Health, and deliver more appropriate and timely medical interventions.

For instance, crew members can avoid administering drugs to which the patient has known allergies. Or, if they know that a patient with breathing difficulties has a history of asthma, they can administer the relevant drug immediately. They can also share the patient’s identity with the hospital, so that preparations can already be made at the Emergency Department even while the patient is being conveyed there by SCDF.

New section 101A(2) inserted by clause 18 therefore proposes to empower SCDF officers and other authorised individuals attending to EMS calls to obtain the fingerprints or other personal identifiers of a patient whose identity is not known, and is unconscious or otherwise unable to communicate, for example individuals who are having a seizure.

Clause 25 amends section 36B(2) of the Immigration Act to allow the Minister for Home Affairs to authorise the disclosure of identifying information belonging to an EMS patient, for the purpose of providing him with urgent medical care.

MHA will work with MOH to grant the authorised personnel access to the relevant health information, strictly on a need-to-know basis.

To safeguard the information, SCDF will put in place robust IT security systems and processes. For example, the devices to capture the fingerprints will be password-protected, and the information encrypted.

Clear guidelines will also be developed, to determine the access rights of the personnel involved and the circumstances under which the information can be accessed. All access to the database will be logged, and penalties will be imposed for any misuse.

Sir, I would now like to address the second objective, to provide SCDF officers with the powers and protection they need to do their job well. SCDF officers often perform emergency and rescue operations which require swift and decisive action.

To reach and extricate persons in emergency situations, SCDF officers may have to enter private premises and remove obstacles that block their way. For example, SCDF officers often have to break down doors and window grills in their rescue operations. To allow operations to proceed efficiently and safely, SCDF officers may have to close roads near the incident site, as well as shut gas, water or electricity supplies to affected premises.

For some types of operation, SCDF officers have been relying on the common law to justify the use of requisite powers. This is the case for EMS and rescue operations, as well as operations involving hazardous materials, or HazMat for short.

Clause 18 places on an explicit legislative footing the requisite powers for these operations in the CD Act. SCDF officers will be allowed to exercise such powers for the purpose of protecting lives and preventing injury and harm to human health.

In time-critical and dangerous situations, SCDF officers are also often required to take calculated risks. For example, in a rescue operation arising from a road accident, SCDF officers may need to cut open vehicles, to extricate trapped victims. This risks damage to the vehicles, and even injury to the people inside.

At present, SCDF officers do not have statutory protection from legal liability, when they take calculated risks during EMS, rescue and HazMat operations. This is not ideal. SCDF officers ought to be allowed to focus on the job at hand, on saving lives, without being distracted by concerns about whether they may be charged or sued for damages caused while performing their duties.

New section 101C inserted by clause 18 therefore provides SCDF officers with legal protection for actions undertaken in execution of the CD Act, including during any civil defence operation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to stress that this does not mean SCDF officers can now act with wanton disregard. The protection applies only where SCDF officers act within the scope of the CD Act, and only when they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care.

So far, I have been speaking only about SCDF officers, and what is needed to allow them to do their jobs more effectively. But SCDF officers are not the only people performing civil defence operations.

Today, SCDF engages ambulances run by PAOs, short for Private Ambulance Operators, to augment its "995" fleet. SCDF also has an arrangement with the SAF for the training of SAF medics, under which SAF medics are attached to SCDF ambulances.

PAO crew members and SAF medics attending to EMS calls perform the same role as their SCDF counterparts and should be given the same powers and legal protection to do their jobs well.

Hence, the new section 101B inserted by clause 18 extends the requisite powers for EMS operations and protection from legal liability to PAO crew members and SAF medics, when they are attending to EMS calls.

I will now move on to the third objective, which is to strengthen SCDF’s disciplinary and other human resource-related processes.

I will begin with the voluntary extension of service for SCDF NSmen. Under the Enlistment Act, the maximum service age for SCDF NSmen is 40 years for those holding the rank of Senior Warrant Officer and below, and 50 for those holding the rank of Second Lieutenant and above.

The new section 9A inserted by clause 7 allows SCDF NSmen to serve beyond the stipulated maximum service age, if they are willing to do so and their services are required by SCDF. This will allow SCDF to continue tapping their valuable expertise, honed through many years of experience. It is in line with what SAF and Police NSmen are currently allowed to do.

With this amendment, motivated individuals such as Mr Jorge Lau will be able to extend their NS with SCDF on a voluntary basis.

Mr Lau was an outstanding SCDF NSman. He was a Deputy Division Commander, holding the rank of Colonel (NS) when he reached the age of 50 last year. Mr Lau has had a unique NS experience. He underwent his Basic Military Training with SAF before becoming a Police NS Inspector, and later served the rest of his Operationally Ready National Service in SCDF. He has held several key appointments in SCDF including Company Commander, Head of Operations, and Battalion Commander, of a Rescue Battalion. The wealth of operational experience he has acquired over many years of NS puts him in a good position to mentor young SCDF NS commanders. With the Voluntary Extension of Service Scheme, SCDF will offer him the opportunity to continue serving.

These volunteers will have same powers, protection, recognition and benefits as operationally-ready NSmen, and will be subject to the same disciplinary regime. Certain provisions of the Enlistment Act will also apply to these SCDF volunteer ex-NSmen. Among other things, the volunteers are protected from the loss of civilian remuneration and unfair dismissal, and employers are required to grant these volunteers leave of absence during the period of service.

Next, I will cover the new service offence for SCDF and Police officers.

In the course of their work, these officers may be exposed to health hazards, such as toxic substances and pathogens. If the need arises, SCDF and Police must have strong levers to compel their officers to go for medical examinations and treatments, including vaccinations. The objective is to protect the health of our officers and prevent the spread of diseases.

The new section 32A inserted by clause 12 makes it a service offence under the CD Act for an SCDF officer not to comply with an order from Commissioner SCDF to go for a medical examination or treatment. Clause 30 amends the Police Force Act to create similar provisions for Police officers. Similar provisions for SAF personnel already exist in the SAF Act.

For the rest of this section, I will speak about the key amendments to SCDF’s summary trial process. There are four of them. They involve changes to how service offences are detected, tried and sanctioned within SCDF.

The first amendment concerns the time bar for summary trials. At present, an SCDF national serviceman cannot be subject to a summary trial, if the offence was committed more than three years ago. To address situations where offences may only come to light later, clause 11 amends section 19(1) to provide for SCDF national servicemen to be tried within three years, from the day the offence was reported or discovered. This change will align SCDF’s practice with the Police.

The second amendment pertains to the recall of NSmen for summary trials. Today, SCDF issues recall orders under section 14 of the Enlistment Act, to compel its NSmen to answer disciplinary charges levelled against them. Such recall orders enable NSmen to claim for the loss of their civilian remuneration under the Enlistment Act.

Clause 10 amends section 18 to allow SCDF to issue orders under the CD Act to compel NSmen who have committed service offences to report for summary trial. With this change, SCDF will not have to make up for the loss of civilian remuneration by affected NSmen. Those who do not show up for their summary trial will be deemed to have committed another service offence. Such provisions for SAF NSmen already exist in the SAF Act.

The third amendment concerns appeals against outcomes of summary trials. At present, SCDF national servicemen below the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel who have committed service offences are tried by SCDF Disciplinary Officers, or DOs, while those with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel or above are tried by a Disciplinary Board. There are currently no avenues of appeal against the decision of the DO or the Disciplinary Board.

To strengthen the summary trial process, clause 15 inserts a new section 76A which provides a new mechanism for SCDF national servicemen to appeal against the findings or award of punishments. The conduct and procedures of an appeal will be set out in regulations. Commissioner SCDF will be the appellate authority. He will determine the outcome of an appeal. In section 81 as amended by clause 16, Commissioner SCDF will also be given the authority to review any findings and award of punishment.

The last amendment in this section concerns the maximum fine quanta for disciplinary offences committed by SCDF national servicemen. Clauses 13 and 14 align the maximum fine quanta for disciplinary offences committed by SCDF NSmen with those for SAF national servicemen. Clauses 27 and 28 do the same, for disciplinary offences committed by Police national servicemen.

Finally, I would like to cover the unauthorised production, distribution and use of Home Team uniforms and insignia.

With the powers and protection conferred on SCDF officers, there is a need to deter abuse by impersonators. Clause 22 will make it an offence for any person to impersonate or misrepresent himself as an SCDF officer. The penalty will be a fine of up to $2,500 and an imprisonment term of up to six months. In addition, any person who manufactures or sells SCDF uniforms or insignia without authorisation from SCDF will be liable for a fine of up to $10,000 and an imprisonment term of up to three years.

Clauses 26 and 31 create similar criminal provisions in the Immigration Act and the Prisons Act, for acts relating to immigration officers and prison officers respectively. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority of Singapore and the Singapore Prison Service are the other uniformed HTDs that currently do not have such provisions.

In conclusion, Sir, while SCDF has done well in its mission, this Bill will ensure that it can become an even more effective Life Saving Force. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

1.52 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, the Singapore Civil Defence Force plays an important role in Singapore’s Total Defence. This Bill plays an important role in enhancing the support the Civil Defence and other Home Team Departments need in their dedicated service to Singapore.

The first main feature of this Bill is that it strengthens human resource capacity by allowing SCDF NSmen to voluntarily extend their service beyond what is required. Similar possibilities exist through the NS volunteer scheme and the Voluntary Extension of Service for Police National Servicemen Scheme, in the SAF and SPF.

This will help advance SCDF’s 2025 Vision of building a "Nation of Lifesavers". Being prepared to save lives would allow for prompter responses to life-threatening incidents and a more robust and resilient response in the event of a national crisis. Would the Minister elaborate on the rationale of the vision and the initiatives that SCDF has undertaken towards partnering the community to collectively work towards that vision?

The second major feature of this Bill is supporting dayto-day operations of the officers. The Bill expands the scope of the SCDF’s functions to go beyond firefighting so as to provide statutory-based powers needed for their day-to-day life-saving duties which do not involve fighting fires. Historically, these duties were performed separately by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the Singapore Fire Service (SFS). However, in 1989, they merged to form Singapore Joint Civil Defence Forces and soon after became known as Singapore Civil Defence Force.

The SCDF’s twin objectives of fighting fires and saving lives can be seen in the Fire Medical Vehicle commissioned in 2017. This vehicle is a hybrid between the Red Rhino and an ambulance, supporting both objectives of firefighting and saving lives. In recognition that life-saving work is important and a core part of what SCDF does, this Bill provides a statutory basis for the powers that need to be exercised in day-to-day operations – to save lives, for example, by breaking open a door.

There are two additional powers provided by the Bill. The first is clause 20 which involves access to install and maintain emergency devices which act as a public warning device or to monitor or detect a civil defence emergency. Clause 20, in particular, prevents the acts of an individual from compromising the safety of many through refusing to cooperate in the installation or maintenance of the device or even tampering with it.

This is important. Why? Because having a functional and effective public warning system is critical for a strong, robust emergency response. In Palu, Indonesia, the earthquake destroyed the mobile phone network infrastructure, which made it impossible to use that mode of communication to disseminate information. Having a warning system in place can make the difference between the life and death of many, but only if it is understood, only if vigilance is exercised in detecting the situation and sounding the alert. As such, would the Minister elaborate on how our systems have been updated and upgarded to detect emergencies, possibly taking in newer warning signs. Would the Minister also elaborate how the community is engaged in emergency detection and preparedness?

A further additional power is the ability to take biometric identification factors to identify an unconscious person or one who is unable to communicate for medical intervention. As the Minister alluded to in her speech earlier, this is a useful and pragmatic improvement as it would allow for a prompter and more accurate diagnosis as medical history may reveal important information such as possible complications and known allergies. In this way, the value of a person’s life necessitates that the practical impossibility of obtaining consent from an unconscious person will not bar more targeted help from being rendered to save the person’s life. SCDF officers will thus be able to render medical assistance more effectively and efficiently. Singaporeans will benefit.

The third feature of the Bill is that it prevents impersonation and unauthorised use of the insignias of the SCDF, Immigration and Prisons officers. This prohibition supports the officers’ work by ensuring that the trust that the public has in the Services is not misused by an impersonator. Immigration Officers keep our borders safe, Prison Officers follow through in implementing incarceration sentences and where necessary, rehabilitation, SCDF Officers command evacuations, douse fires and save lives. Impersonators should not be allowed to dilute their cause or effectivenesss or the trust instilled in our officers.

Indeed, trust has been hard earned. The public perception survey of 2016 showed that “the overall public confidence with SCDF being capable to cope with emergencies reached a high at 99%”. Well done to our SCDF and Home Team officers.

Sir, this Bill gives SCDF NSmen the opportunity to continue serving the nation in this unique capacity, using the skills, training and experience they have built and honed over the years. Having been instilled with a duty to save lives, SCDF Nsmen will be able to formally and regularly advance the mission of saving lives through better powers and a more robust legal framework for the environment within which they operate. Therefore, Sir, I support the Bill.

2.00 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the intention of this Bill is to expand the legal powers of SCDF officers to respond to a wider range of incidents, especially during non-fire emergencies. This can only be a positive move and I stand in support of it.

I seek a few clarifications regarding this Bill which Minister essentially addressed in her opening speech.

First, the official Press Release by MHA states that such non-fire emergencies could include responding to emergency medical services calls. For a better understanding, could the Minister provide further examples of other day-to-day emergencies which do not constitute as a civil defence emergency?

Under clause 3, powers will be given to SCDF officers to enable them to act in good faith and with reasonable care to save lives and prevent injuries. It would be helpful to receive clarifications on these circumstances since the powers of SCDF officers are extensive, including breaking into private places and vehicles.

Second, clause 7 introduces a new scheme allowing ex-NS men who were enlisted in SCDF to continue serving as volunteers. Could the Minister provide more information on this scheme? For example, how would their roles differ from the Civil Defence Auxiliary Unit (CDAU) or SCDF’s volunteer force set up in 2006? Would the ex-NS men volunteer under a separate scheme? The Bill also states that the Minister may, from time to time, authorise that the NSmen be paid for their services. Under what circumstances will they be paid?

Third, I also understand that the Bill also requires building owners to provide space and grant SCDF officers access to install, maintain and repair the outdoor sirens that are part of the Public Warning System as well as other emergency devices. I was going to ask about the rationale for this change but the Minister has answered it in her speech. But I want to add that the Public Warning System is important as it warns all of us of imminent threats that could endanger lives and properties. I know this is not part of this Bill, but what is also equally important is the fire alarm system and we need to address the lack of central fire alarm systems at our HDB blocks.

I appreciate that SCDF will be introducing a new requirement for all new residential units, and residential units undergoing works which impact fire safety, to install Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs). It is good to provide early warning to the occupants of the affected unit, but what is also important is to provide warning for other residents living in that block.

This will not only help all residents in the affected block but also the SCDF officers responding to fight the fire. Every second counts in a fire emergency and lives will be saved if people are aware of the fire early and can evacuate early. The dangers our SCDF officers face will also be reduced if people are evacuated early.

We also need to remember that it is not only the fire that kills but, more often than not, also the smoke. While the fire might be contained in the unit, the smoke is not. I have raised this issue several times already and I sincerely hope that MHA will consider mandating central fire alarm systems at our HDB blocks, similar to what is already present in condominiums. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

2.03 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. The proposed measures to provide SCDF officers with clearer legal powers will aid the officers in their day-to-day operations. However, I do have some questions regarding some of the proposed measures.

First, I welcome the move to provide SCDF officers and providers of emergency ambulance services with explicit legislative powers for their day-to-day operations. During an incident, where time is of the utmost importance, the last thing that we can afford is for those attending to medical emergencies to hesitate, or have their hands shackled by the uncertainty of the lawfulness of their actions.

Under the Bill, SCDF officers attending to medical emergencies will be allowed to collect the fingerprints and other personal identifiers of unconscious patients. This will allow them to quickly obtain the necessary health information in order to administer the appropriate medical treatment, on-site or otherwise. I would like to ask the Minister how this would be operationalised. Would officers have a mobile device that can access such sensitive information remotely, and how can we safeguard these personal data?

Due to the protection conferred upon SCDF officers, the Bill proposes to criminalise any unauthorised production, sale, distribution and use of SCDF uniforms and insignia, to deter abuse by impersonators. While I agree with the intention of this measure, I would like to ask if there had been any past cases of impersonation of SCDF officers. And, if so, what were the intentions of the impersonator to do so? Would the Ministry be open to consider authorising some vendors, such as those operating in the Beach Road army market, for example, to sell SCDF uniforms to officers who can prove their identity on site?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill proposes measures to strengthen the disciplinary framework for Home Team officers. Under the Bill, it is an offence for Home Team officers to refuse to undergo medical examinations and treatments. While I can understand the need for this measure to avoid situations where officers refuse to go for such medical examinations or treatments, despite the possibility of exposure to health hazards, I am puzzled as to why refusing dental treatments would be classified as an offence. Perhaps, the Minister could elaborate on what are the examples of dental issues arising from exposure to health hazards, and if there have been any past cases that have compelled the Ministry to designate such non-compliance as an offence.

Mr Deputy Speaker, many of the proposed measures in the Bill applies to the SCDF volunteer corps, also known as the Civil Defence Auxiliary Unit (CDAU). The CDAU was established in 2006 and the current pool of volunteers consists mainly of ex-NSmen. I would like to know if the SCDF has sufficient CDAU volunteers today, and if the scheme can be opened to first-generation PRs who may not have served National Service but are still keen to contribute to our civil defence. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

2.07 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): The Civil Defence Force plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety of Singaporeans and residents. This comes with great sacrifice for SCDF officers, who put themselves at risk constantly and they deserve our nation’s appreciation and gratitude. One only needs to recall the Pulau Busing fire which happened in March this year. The massive fire required the deployment of more than a hundred personnel. Thanks to the hard work of our SCDF officers, the fire did not spread to two nearby oil tanks, which would have made the situation far worse. What was particularly etched in the minds of many appreciative Singaporeans was the photograph published in many news portals of our fatigued firefighters, many of them NSmen, drenched in perspiration because of the extreme heat, taking rests in between their duties.

The Bill makes changes to the Civil Defence Act to give explicit powers to SCDF officers for peacetime civil defence operations and, as stated by the hon Minister, to enhance the SCDF’s operational response and effectiveness. These are necessary to allow the SCDF to take necessary and timely actions in day-to-day operations, in particular, to prevent the escalation of an emergency.

In connection with this, the Bill proposes that the powers given to SCDF officers must be exercised in good faith and reasonable care, and, if so, the SCDF officers will not be personally liable for any act or omission carried out in the execution of such powers.

This protection from personal liability presently applies in civil defence emergency situations, but will now be extended to peacetime situations. This is a recognition of the dangerous situations that SCDF officers face even in peacetime.

I would like to seek a clarification. Whilst liability against individual SCDF officers in such circumstances is excluded, may I ask whether it is meant to exclude institutional liability of the SCDF?

Let me elaborate. There may be cases of institutional negligence leading to death. For example, in a 2000 English case, a pregnant woman had suffered a serious asthma attack at home, and the visiting GP made an emergency call for an ambulance, which took 40 minutes to arrive. The woman suffered a miscarriage and brain damage. The ambulance service was found negligent for its unreasonable delay in arriving to the victim’s aid.

Such cases, by and large, are the exception rather than the norm as, under common law, there must be clear evidence of professional negligence by the emergency services crew who need to perform sometimes in exacting conditions. In the English case, the Court focused on the fact that whilst the ambulance service accepted the call to respond, it failed to explain why it had taken 34 minutes to travel 10 km, barely 18 km per hour, and why the ambulance log book had been deliberately falsified to show a travel time of about nine minutes.

It must also be borne in mind that, in Singapore, hospitals and doctors are not immune to claims against them in respect of the medical care they provide.

I understand the rationale for protecting SCDF officers from personal liability, so long as they act in good faith and act reasonably. May I please clarify whether the proposed amendment in the Bill is also meant to prevent victims from seeking redress against the SCDF as an institution? If so, may I please ask what is the rationale for this?

The Act presently allows the SCDF to direct any person to render assistance to save life in immediate damage, during a state of emergency. Apart from this, I wonder whether we should give the power to the SCDF to instruct members of the public to provide cooperation to handle emergency situations even in peacetime.

Under common law, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another and, therefore, generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. In contrast, if a person decides to come to the rescue of another, the good Samaritan is said to have assumed a duty of care, and can become liable if his action makes the situation worse, such as injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt.

I filed a Parliamentary Question last month on whether notices to guide the public on the use of AEDs could be installed in public locations to guide members of the public who have not received training on the use of AEDs. The hon Minister, in his answer, informed that a new educational sticker, with clear step-by-step instructions on how to handle suspected cardiac arrest cases, will be affixed to the bottom left of every AED cabinet installed in HDB blocks by July 2019.

How do we protect such people who step in to help in good faith? By providing protection to them, we may encourage more people to use AEDs, fire extinguishers, and go some way to achieve the vision of a nation of life savers that the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned in his speech.

Finally, section 115(2) of the Act is proposed to be amended to allow the Minister to make regulations to “prescribe anything which may be prescribed”. What is the thinking behind this? The amendment is so wide that it is as general as section 115(1) which already states that the Minister may make regulations for carrying out or giving effect to the provisions of this Act. Is this amendment really necessary?

In conclusion, I applaud the good and hard work of SCDF. I support Bill. But I would welcome clarifications on the three points I raised from the hon Minister.

2.13 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill will give our officers the powers to respond to a wider range of incidents. The explicit legal powers currently granted to our SCDF officers are limited to fire-fighting operations, Civil Defence operations during a state of emergency or state of Civil Defence emergency.

However, our officers also assist in rescues involving Emergency Medical Services and other life-and-death situations, such as worksite and traffic accidents. Hence, it is only right that they are protected from legal liability when they are part of such hazardous operations.

I am concerned about the caveat that requires officers to “act in good faith and with reasonable care” in the course of their duties. This is a reasonable expectation but somewhat vague. In the event of a tragedy, how do we determine what constitutes “good faith” and “reasonable care”? Is there a list of guidelines or best practices?

In an emergency where chaos reigns, officers may have to make split-second judgement calls under very tremendous stress and heavy constraints. What measures are available to protect these officers if something goes wrong and family members of victims decide to pursue further action?

Is there a neutral panel or body which all parties can turn to for additional information, guidance and mediation?

I request for elucidation as I think that more clarity is necessary for all parties concerned to get on the same page, and to empower our officers to carry out their duties with greater confidence. Sir, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Josephine Teo.

2.16 pm

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. They have raised salient issues, which I will now address.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked whether the public warning system will be upgraded to incorporate detection capabilities. The answer is yes. SCDF is studying the feasibility of installing devices that can detect hazardous materials in the air, such as chemicals or radiological substances. SCDF will provide more information at a later stage.

Next, I will address the questions on SCDF's access to the personal information of EMS patients which Mr Melvin Yong asked about. Specifically, how the information will be accessed and how it will be protected – all very valid questions.

SCDF will equip the ambulance crew with a mobile device that can scan the patient's fingerprint and check it remotely against ICA's database. If there is a match, the patient's NRIC or FIN number will be provided to obtain the relevant information from the National Electronic Health Record system.

SCDF is keenly aware of the need to safeguard patients' information and has designed several steps to do so.

First, access rights will be strictly controlled. There will be SOPs to specify the officers who can access the information, as well as the circumstances under which they are authorised to do so. The information that the officers can access is restricted to what is necessary to provide timely and effective care to the patient.

Second, robust measures will be implemented to reduce the risk of unauthorised access. Examples include measures against hacking, encryption of information, password protection, measures against multiple unsuccessful log-ins, such as the auto-lockdown of the account and the auto-wipe of data stored on the device, and regular purging of data from the devices.

Third, a robust logging and audit regime will be put in place. Access to ICA and MOH's databases will be logged and regularly audited. Any person found to have abused his access to the information will be severely dealt with. Persons who commit offences under the relevant legislation, such as the Computer Misuse Act, will be charged in Court.

I will now proceed to address questions on the powers and protection for SCDF officers and authorised individuals performing civil defence operations. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira sought clarification on the circumstances under which the powers and protection will apply.

I would like to assure Mr Ng that the proposed powers are scoped tightly, to cover only those necessary for SCDF's operations. Such operations include not only emergency medical services but also rescues.

On a day-to-day basis, SCDF conducts a broad range of rescue operations, in response to industrial and traffic accidents, HazMat incidents and also suicide attempts. In all these operations, SCDF officers sometimes have to enter private premises without permission, remove objects that impede operations, evacuate endangered persons, close roads and shut off utilities supplies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the protection from legal liability is not unconditional. It will apply only when the officers concerned have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. Let me explain what these two terms mean.

An officer will be judged to have acted in good faith, if his actions were coherent and consistent with the intent to save lives, prevent harm to health, or protect property. So, there is a very tight condition set around the idea of acting in good faith.

He will be judged to have acted with reasonable care, if his actions were of a standard commensurate with his skill and experience for that particular situation. So, again, there is an expectation that the actions must relate to his skill and also his experience in those particular circumstances.

I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira that as long as SCDF officers and authorised individuals act with integrity and competence, they will have no difficulties meeting the bar of "acting in good faith and with reasonable care". The Fire Safety Act has a similar protection for SCDF officers when they perform fire-fighting operations.

SCDF will equip its officers with the competence to make the necessary decisions during operations. SCDF will continue to put its officers through rigorous training and constantly refine its SOPs, to guide their actions during operations.

That said, we are also cognisant that no training or SOP can cover the full range of operational contingencies. Hence, any evaluation of whether an officer has acted in good faith or reasonable care will also take into account whether his decisions were reasonable under those circumstances, for instance, he may be working with incomplete information and dealing with severe time constraints.

Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the proposed protection will apply to SCDF as an institution. Mr Deputy Speaker, the protection extends to SCDF as well by virtue of section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act. The Government remains liable for wrongful torts committed by SCDF officers if the SCDF officer did not act in good faith or with reasonable care.

In the English case that the Member has cited, it appears that the English ambulance service had been negligent. In the event of negligence, the protection from liability will not apply to both the officers concerned and to SCDF, as the condition of "acting in good faith and with reasonable care" would not be met.

SCDF is funded by public monies, and has a responsibility to safeguard them from frivolous claims, which the protection will help to prevent.

Next, I will address questions on the proposal to make it a service offence for SCDF and Police officers not to comply with orders to go for a medical examination or treatment.

Mr Melvin Yong was puzzled as to why the relevant provisions cover dental treatments, and I would like to clarify that these dental treatments will only pertain to those required by the SCDF and the SPF. This will ensure that the provision is comprehensive. Currently, we do not have any required dental examination or treatment, but we cannot rule out the possibility of such requirements in the future. So, there is nothing untoward happening now regarding teeth but we still have to take care and these will be in support of operational readiness. A similar provision, just in case, Sir, you are curious, requiring dental examinations and treatment can already be found in the existing SAF Act. So, SCDF is not doing something very unusual.

I will move to the unauthorised production, distribution and use of uniforms and insignia. Mr Melvin Yong asked whether there were cases where ill-intentioned individuals had impersonated Home Team officers, and the answer is yes.

There have been a few cases. For example, in 2014, SCDF received feedback concerning four scammers. Dressed in uniform and identifying themselves as SCDF officers, they had demanded to see the fire certificates of several shops at Jalan Bukit Merah, and tried to sell fire extinguishers to the shop-owners. In 2016, a man wore a uniform and posed as an ICA officer, to steal contraband cigarettes.

Mr Melvin Yong expressed concerns about the impact of the amendments on retailers who are currently selling SCDF, ICA and Prisons uniforms. He asked whether it is possible to allow the retailers to continue selling the items, albeit only to bona fide Home Team officers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the impact on retailers is not expected to be significant. When SCDF informed retailers of plans to prohibit the sale and distribution of the items some months ago, the retailers told SCDF that they did not have large inventories of SCDF, ICA and Prisons items, as the sales volumes for such items were low. This is because most SCDF regulars and NSmen prefer to purchase their items from SCDF's own e-mart.

Mr Christopher de Souza cited SCDF's vision of building a "Nation of Life-Savers" by 2025, and asked how SCDF intends to realise that vision.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the "Nation of Life-Savers" vision stems from a simple fact, that the key to dealing with many emergencies is timely action. Timely action will allow an incident to be managed before it becomes more serious.

The SCDF has a high standard of emergency response. But it will still take around eight to eleven minutes for fire engines or ambulances to reach any location. In comparison, a family member or member of the public in the immediate vicinity can provide more immediate assistance.

Hence, in 2015, SCDF launched the Save-A-Life initiative to encourage community first-response to cardiac arrests in the HDB heartlands. Under this initiative, SCDF is installing AEDs in HDB blocks island-wide. SCDF also launched the myResponder app, which alerts first-responders of cardiac arrests in the vicinity and where AEDs are located.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we are on track to complete the installation of AEDs at the HDB blocks, by March 2019. All that will be done. SCDF is now exploring the extension of the Save-A-Life initiative to private condominiums.

In April 2018, the myResponder app was also enhanced, to alert first-responders of minor fires in the neighbourhood. This has allowed the first-responders to help SCDF put out rubbish chute fires, or provide photos and videos of the fires to SCDF for better sense-making.

During a state of emergency or state of civil defence emergency, SCDF officers have the power to direct any member of public to render assistance to save lives. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether SCDF officers should be allowed to exercise such a power for day-to-day civil defence operations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the power the Member cited is a significant one. The refusal to comply with an SCDF officer's direction is a criminal offence. An offender is liable for an imprisonment of up to three months and a fine of up to $2,000.

The power is necessary during a state of emergency. In such a situation, Government resources are likely to be stretched. Under such extraordinary circumstances, SCDF must have the levers to mobilise any civilian resources available, including members of the public.

This is not the case for day-to-day civil defence operations.

For SCDF's vision of a "Nation of Life-Savers" to be feasible and sustainable, we want members of the public to come forward willingly as community first-responders, and not because they are obliged to.

The question then is whether enacting a Good Samaritan Law will assuage potential concerns that individuals may have about rendering assistance to others, unintentionally causing harm and being liable for criminal prosecution or civil claims, as Mr Murali has noted.

Sir, I would like to clarify that protection from civil liability is already available under the common law to a Good Samaritan, when he acts out of necessity and with the care that can reasonably be expected of a person having his skill and experience. As for criminal liability, this generally requires malign intent which will not apply to a Good Samaritan who acts in good faith. Nevertheless, we will study this issue further to see if specific legislation is warranted.

Mr Melvin Yong asked whether SCDF has enough volunteers in the Civil Defence Auxiliary Unit, or CDAU, and whether first-generation Permanent Residents (PRs) can be allowed to join CDAU.

SCDF started the CDAU in 2006. CDAU caters to individuals who are keen to serve as SCDF volunteers in functions such as fire-fighting, EMS and public education. The number of CDAU volunteers has grown from 18 in 2006 to 300 currently.

I would like to inform Members that CDAU is also open to PRs. At present, we have 10 volunteers who are first-generation PRs. We certainly welcome more people to sign up.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill will also allow NSmen to volunteer to serve in SCDF beyond the statutory age in the Enlistment Act. Mr Louis Ng asked about the difference between the roles of volunteer ex-NSmen and of CDAU volunteers, and the circumstances under which volunteer ex-NSmen will be paid.

There are two key differences. First, volunteer ex-NSmen serve in NS units, mainly in specialised roles such as Rescue Battalions and Civil Defence Shelter Battalions. CDAU volunteers, who may not necessarily have served NS with SCDF, perform a broader range of roles such as fire-fighting, EMS and public education.

Second, there is a difference in the manner in which they are called to serve.

In the case of a volunteer ex-NSman, he can be called up for up to 40 days per work year, mostly for in-camp training.

In terms of scheduling their volunteer duties, CDAU volunteers are given the flexibility to work around their career and family commitments. They typically serve at least 16 hours of duty per month, so it is quite different.

Similar to NSmen, volunteer ex-NSmen receive service and make-up pay when they are called up for duty. They may also receive additional allowances as key appointment-holders.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether MHA will consider mandating central fire alarm systems in HDB blocks.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to clarify that there are no differences in the Fire Code requirements for fire alarm systems for private and public residential buildings – both do not require a central fire alarm system.

SCDF’s assessment is that the Fire Code requirements for residential buildings are sufficient vis-à-vis the fire risks. Typically, residents are familiar with the emergency escape routes for their buildings, which are moreover designed to enable effective smoke dissipation in the event of a fire. Residential units are also designed to be fire compartmentalised to reduce the risk of fire-spread.

Consequently, SCDF assesses that there is no need to require the installation of central fire alarm systems in residential buildings. However, SCDF will monitor the situation, and make adjustments if necessary.

I will conclude by addressing a technical amendment that Mr Murali Pillai asked about. This is the amendment to section 115(2), which allows the Minister to make regulations on any matter that may be prescribed under the Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment makes it clear that the Minister’s power to make regulations under section 115(1) includes the power to make regulations for matters that the Act expressly allows or requires to be prescribed. Examples include the definition of "prescribed civil defence emergency device" in section 2 or "relevant premises" in the new section 103A.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments in the Civil Defence and Other Matters Bill will strengthen SCDF’s operational effectiveness and streamline its internal processes. They will enable SCDF to be more effective in saving lives and protecting property. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.