Fire Safety (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

On 14 June 2017, an ordinary house fire escalated rapidly to an inferno that engulfed the entire Grenfell Tower in London. Firefighters took 60 hours to extinguish the fire. The fire claimed 72 lives, destroyed 151 homes and rendered more than 200 residents homeless. While the inquiry is still ongoing, fire safety experts have discovered many serious fire safety breaches, such as the installation of over 100 non-compliant fire doors and the use of non-compliant external cladding, which contributed to the tragedy.

More recently, on 15 April 2019, a fire broke out at the Notre Dame cathedral and spread rapidly. The fire was put out only after three hours of intense firefighting. While the structure was saved, the cathedral’s spire and most of its roof were destroyed and its upper walls severely damaged. Investigations are still ongoing, but it is already evident that the cathedral lacked fundamental fire-prevention safeguards, such as firewalls and sprinkler systems. Some of these safeguards were deliberately omitted due to design considerations and these regulatory decisions are now being called into question in the aftermath of this tragic loss.

These devastating incidents remind us of the catastrophic damage that can be caused by fires and the importance of strong regulatory regimes to prevent such tragedies in the first place.

In Singapore, our fire fatality rate remains low, as compared with cities, such as Hong Kong, London, New York and Tokyo. We have succeeded in reducing it by half from 0.15 fatalities per 100,000 population in 2014, to 0.07 in 2018. In comparison, New York’s fire fatality rate was 15 times higher in 2018 and Tokyo’s was nine times higher. That said, we should not be complacent, and think we are immune.

We would do well to remember the recent blaze at Jalan Buroh, where a fire engulfed a liquid petroleum gas facility about the size of two football fields. One worker perished and two others were hospitalised for burn injuries. The fire also caused significant damage to property. In fact, it could have been worse, given the large amounts of liquid petroleum gas nearby and if not for the valiant response by our SCDF firefighters.

Our fire safety regulatory regime plays an important role in preventing fires and mitigating their impact. Let me briefly explain the regime.

The Fire Safety Act sets out general provisions related to fire safety, such as various regulatory requirements and the responsibilities of relevant parties, including industry professionals and building owners.

There is also a Code of Practice for Fire Precautions in Buildings, simply known as the "Fire Code", which sets out specific fire safety standards that must be complied with when a building is being constructed or when it undergoes additions and alterations works, or A&A works.

SCDF regularly updates the Fire Code. It was most recently updated in May this year.

The Fire Safety Act, on the other hand, was last amended in 2016. It is timely for us to review the Act again.

Indeed, in recent years, we have observed developments which give impetus to bringing the Act up to date, among others:

(a) an increase in the height of buildings and urban density in Singapore, which makes firefighting operations even more challenging, as well as increase the potential damage from fires; and

(b) the introduction of new building materials and products, which may pose higher fire risks.

We have, therefore, reviewed the Act and the Amendment Bill will have the following thrusts: one, to enhance the fire safety of buildings in Singapore; two, to increase the accountability of all parties involved in the supply chain for regulated fire safety products; three, to enhance SCDF’s investigative and enforcement powers to prevent and rectify non-compliances; four, to optimise SCDF’s capabilities and resources by allowing them to focus on the areas which present higher fire safety risks and outsource more routine and straightforward functions; and five, to provide greater clarity to the industry on fire safety standards.

Let me now explain the key amendments. I will start with our proposal to enhance the fire safety of buildings in Singapore.

Currently, SCDF requires new buildings and buildings undergoing A&A works to conform to the prevailing Fire Code. However, older buildings that have not undergone A&A works are not subject to the latest requirements. Many, therefore, have not upgraded their fire safety measures for a long time. On top of that, some have occupants with reduced mobility, such as the elderly and patients. While these buildings have some measures which provide baseline fire safety, overall, they have a higher fire risk profile. The safety of the occupants and the public who visit such buildings can be enhanced by installing selected upgrades. SCDF needs to be given these powers to direct such upgrades.

To achieve this, clause 10 repeals and re-enacts section 20 and inserts a new section 20A, which will empower the Commissioner of Civil Defence to issue an order to require building owners to install fire safety measures, if these measures are assessed to be necessary for public safety.

SCDF is keenly aware that this will impose additional costs on building owners. In exercising this power, SCDF will be judicious and will take a risk-based approach in identifying buildings and the fire safety upgrades that will be required of them. For now, we have identified around 500 buildings. These are mostly commercial, industrial and Government buildings, based on factors, such as the age of the buildings and the profile of the occupants.

One example is Ling Kwang Home, which houses elderly residents. The Home was built in 1983, in compliance with the 1982 Fire Code. Since then, newer versions of the Fire Code have introduced additional provisions for healthcare facilities, such as the requirement to have at least two areas of refuge on each floor to facilitate fire evacuation. But as the Home has not undergone A&A works, it has not been subject to these new requirements. For the sake of its residents, the fire safety measures of the Home should be upgraded. SCDF has worked with the Home to identify the critical measures required and I am pleased to share that the Home has voluntarily commenced works, even though the Bill has not been passed yet.

Building owners who encounter practical difficulties may approach SCDF to explore options and SCDF may provide flexibility on a case-by-case basis. We will also provide an avenue for appeal.

Let me now move on to the second proposal, which seeks to prevent and stop the use of non-compliant regulated fire safety products. To do so, we will tighten controls over the entire supply chain.

Let me give the background to this proposal. In May 2017, a fire occurred at an industrial building along Toh Guan Road, which resulted in one fatality. SCDF’s investigations found that the composite panels used as the building’s external cladding were not compliant with the required standards, which contributed to the rapid spread of the fire. SCDF then undertook a comprehensive verification of the fire safety of buildings that could potentially have used similar cladding and found other lapses. We then convened a cladding review panel, which proposed various measures to tighten control over the supply chain.

The parties involved in the supply chain for fire safety products include: (a) manufacturers and suppliers; (b) laboratories that test the fire safety performance of the products and issue test reports; (c) certification bodies that review the test reports and issue Certificates of Conformity (CoC) that certify the fire safety performance of the products; and (d) installers of these products.

These supply chain actors all have a part to play in making sure that only products and materials that meet SCDF’s prescribed standards in the Fire Code are used for our buildings.

However, under the current Fire Safety Act, SCDF can only take limited enforcement actions against some of the parties, for example:

(a) the owners and occupiers for failing to appoint an appropriate Qualified Person or Fire Safety Engineer to prepare the required plans and supervise fire safety works;

(b) any person who commences or carries out or authorises the commencement or carrying out of fire safety works without the approval of Commissioner, or without the supervision of an appropriate Qualified Person or Fire Safety Engineer; and

(c) Qualified Persons, Fire Safety Engineers and Registered Inspectors who do not carry out their responsibilities in ensuring that the fire safety works are in accordance with the Act requirements.

We cannot prosecute other parties involved in the supply chain, nor can we issue rectification orders, even if the product has been found to be non-compliant. For example, under the current Act, SCDF is unable to take action against: (a) the manufacturers and suppliers; (b) the test laboratories that issue a false test report; and (c) the certification bodies that issue a CoC that falsely represents that the product meets the required standards.

Clause 26, therefore, inserts a new Part Five on regulated fire safety products, which will introduce enforcement levers over all actors in the supply chain:

(a) the new section 32C makes it an offence for any person to supply a non-compliant fire safety product;

(b) the new section 32 makes it an offence for any test laboratory to issue a false test report;

(c) the new section 32B makes it an offence for any person who is not an accredited certification body to certify these products and for accredited certification bodies to falsely issue a certificate of conformity; and

(d) when non-compliant products find their way into the market or into our buildings, the new section 33A empowers Commissioner to issue directions to any party with possession, charge or control of the product to recall, cease supply, remove or dispose of the product, as well as to rectify any contravention.

In addition, there may be situations where SCDF reasonably suspects certain products or materials to be non-compliant with the required standards. However, SCDF currently only has the power to order building owners to test the products, whereas there are instances where the culpability may lie with the certification body or the CoC holder.

The new section 33 will, therefore, empower the Commissioner to require a certification body or a CoC holder to test any fire safety product, including installed products.

If the certification body falsely issues a CoC or does not cancel the CoC after knowing that the product does not meet the applicable standards, or if the party refuses to comply with SCDF’s order to test the product, the new section 33B allows the Commissioner to order the certification body to cancel any existing CoCs.

In addition, if the Commissioner has reason to believe that any person is supplying or offering to supply non-compliant fire safety products despite knowing that they are non-compliant, or falsely representing these products to be compliant, he can order the certification body not to issue any more CoCs to this person, including for other products. If the certification body does not comply with SCDF’s orders, the Minister may gazette these products as non-compliant.

These new powers, Mr Speaker, will allow SCDF to deem products, which SCDF reasonably suspects to have fire safety risks, to be non-compliant, thereby allowing SCDF to use its enforcement levers.

I will now talk about SCDF’s investigative and enforcement powers.

Apart from non-compliant fire safety products and materials, fire hazards also pose significant risks to public safety. Examples of fire hazards include overcrowding, non-maintenance of fire safety measures and obstruction of fire escape routes. They materially increase the likelihood of fires and the dangers when fires break out.

Currently, when dealing with fire hazards, SCDF must first issue a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice and can only take action against the errant parties if they fail to comply with the Notice.

Given that some fire hazards may pose serious fire safety risks, clause 9 inserts two new sections.

Section 12A will make it an offence for building owners or occupiers to cause or fail to abate or prevent these fire hazards and section 12B will make it an offence for any responsible party to cause any fire safety measure in the premises to not be in proper working order or to cause an obstruction of fire escape routes.

This thus provides SCDF with an additional option of taking immediate prosecutorial action against those responsible for serious fire hazards, rather than being able to only issue a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice.

Next, SCDF currently has some powers under the Fire Safety Act to enter premises linked to offences under the Act, to conduct investigations. However, this is not the full suite of powers needed in an investigation. SCDF has to work with the Police to conduct certain tasks, such as to take statements from relevant parties.

We will empower SCDF to be able to pursue investigations independently, so as to expedite the investigation process. Clause 7 inserts a new section 8CA, which empowers the Commissioner or an authorised SCDF member to examine persons and require them to attend before SCDF for investigations into any offences under the Act.

In addition, clause 6 amends section 8 to empower SCDF to enter any premises to obtain evidence related to the breach of a licensing condition by an alarm monitoring services licensee or to the commission of any offence under the Act.

SCDF is the subject matter expert on fire investigations and these amendments will facilitate their investigations under the Act.

The Bill also proposes to increase the penalties for five serious offences under the Fire Safety Act. These are:

(a) unauthorised change of use of premises which may then render existing fire safety measures in the building to become inadequate;

(b) failure of the Fire Safety Engineer to ensure that the engineering solution proposed for the building satisfies fire safety performance requirements;

(c) failure of appointed Qualified Persons to supervise fire safety works;

(d) failure of appointed Qualified Persons to submit relevant reports and certificates; and

(e) failure of the appointed Registered Inspector to inspect and or verify that fire safety works have been completed according to approved plans.

The enhanced penalties will be aligned with similar offences under the Fire Safety Act as well as other Acts, such as the Building Control Act and the Planning Act. For example, the penalties for an appointed Registered Inspector who fails to inspect and verify that fire safety works have been completed according to approved plans will be increased from a current maximum fine of $10,000 and/or six months' jail term, to a maximum fine of $100,000 and/or two years' jail term. This was benchmarked to a similar offence of an appointed accredited checker who fails to check detailed structural plans and to verify design calculations under the Building Control Act.

I will now explain the fourth set of proposals that will optimise SCDF's capabilities and resources by allowing them to focus on complex areas which pose higher fire safety risks and outsource more routine and straightforward functions.

SCDF conducts fire safety enforcement inspections of buildings. These can be categorised into scheduled and non-scheduled inspections.

The fire stations send their officers to conduct scheduled inspections of premises within their jurisdiction, in order to allow the officers to familiarise themselves with the buildings and provide them with an opportunity to engage the owners and occupiers.

On the other hand, non-scheduled inspections arise from ad-hoc feedback. Annually, there are about 4,000 non-scheduled inspections. Around half involve offences that are straightforward and can be easily established through visual inspections. Examples include obstruction to fire exit staircases and non-maintenance of fire extinguishers.

To enable our SCDF officers to focus on more complex enforcement inspections, clause 8 will allow SCDF to appoint suitably-trained individuals to conduct fire safety building inspections and to exercise certain enforcement powers, such as the issuance of Fire Hazard Abatement Notices, for simple and straightforward cases. For a start, SCDF is looking to appoint a small team of around five third-party officers to conduct these tasks. These appointed officers will be deemed to be public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code in their exercise of these powers.

SCDF will exercise careful discretion in the scope of work to be outsourced and retain control over all fire safety enforcement actions. SCDF will also implement safeguards, such as random audits, and require appointed officers to wear body-worn cameras when they carry out inspections. This will ensure that the appointed officers conduct their inspections professionally and minimise the risk of any abuse of authority.

Next, SCDF relies on third-party fire alarm operators to monitor and verify alarms in higher-risk premises before deploying SCDF's resources. During the recent Jalan Buroh fire, the alarms at the premises detected the fire and immediately alerted both the fire alarm operator and SCDF. The fire alarm operator quickly confirmed the fire incident and SCDF then dispatched its resources.

Given the important role of alarm operators, as well as the projected 2% to 3% annual increase in demand for such services, clause 17 inserts a new Part IIIB on the licensing of persons providing alarm monitoring services. This will allow SCDF to regulate the operators, set minimum service standards and ensure service continuity.

Lastly, I will cover proposals that will provide greater clarity to the industry on fire safety requirements.

Clause 10 repeals and inserts a new section 20, which requires designated buildings or classes of buildings to have a Fire Certificate in order to be occupied or used. This will provide clarity and consistency for all emergency preparedness requirements. SCDF will provide a one-off notification to owners of buildings that have been newly-designated.

In addition, clause 2 amends section 2 to revise the definition of certain terms. For example, the definition of the Fire Code will be amended to make clear that the current version published on SCDF's website is the latest version. An electronic version of the Fire Code which is published on SCDF's website will enable faster updates and facilitate access to the latest Fire Code by the industry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore’s low fire fatality rate can also be attributed to our robust fire safety regulatory regime, besides the fire-fighting efforts of our SCDF.

The amendments I have spelt out are required to ensure that we continue to have an effective regime, thereby ensuring an even safer Singapore. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

4.38 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, the Fire Safety Act seeks to minimise fire hazards. Fire has the potential to harm many more people in addition to the one who started it. Persons in the adjacent unit to where the fire started may also have their property affected and their lives threatened. The blocking of the fire escape passageways affects the people who use that passageway – not just the family in front of which the items are placed. Fire safety is a team effort and this Bill strengthens that resolve. It does so in several ways.

One, it strengthens the enforcement powers. New sections 12A and 12B in clause 9 makes specified fire hazards a direct offence instead of needing a notice to be issued as a preamble to an offence. This means that people cannot take for granted that they will be served the notice to comply before getting charged with an offence.

There is also increased punishment if a person continues to contravene the Act. For example, the new section 2(4), as amended by clause 2(j) of the Bill, makes it a continual non-compliance with the Act a separate offence. The new section 20A(3)(b) in clause 10 also provides for enhanced sentence for a continuing offence for non-compliance with an order to install fire safety measures. These measures increase the cost of non-compliance, ensuring that it is not more cost effective to commit an offence than to comply with an order.

Clause 10 of the Bill allows the SCDF to issue notices to building owners to provide or install fire safety measures even if they are not going through renovations if they are of the view that it is necessary for public safety. If old building structures are required to comply with the new safety code, the measures are potentially extremely onerous, especially if a renovation was not planned. For instance, it was reported in CNA that International Plaza would need to have fire escape staircases leading to the outside of the building and Ling Kwang Home for Senior Citizens would require fire compartmentalisation to facilitate horizontal evacuation. Would the minister elaborate on how the measures will be tailored to the need of the safety of the public in those buildings and how the owners will be assisted in complying with the measures imposed?

Additionally, the meaning of "public building" is amended in clause 2(g) from a definition that focuses on the purposes of the building to whether or not "the public or a section of the public has access as of right, or by virtue of express or implied permission with or without payment of a fee". This is ideal as buildings can be multi-purpose and focuses on the rationale behind the categorising of a building as a public building, that is, safety of the public. Will current building owners who are affected by the change of definition of "public building" be notified and advised on how to comply with the new requirements? Currently, places where people assemble for religious or educational purposes are expressly excluded from the definition of "public building" in paragraph (d)(i). By way of illustration, under what circumstances would a place of worship or school be considered a public building? Would the Minister also elaborate on what would be considered a section of the public?

Second, this Bill regulates more stringently the provision of fire safety devices and fire alarm monitoring services.

The regulatory framework for fire safety devices is meant to ensure accountability. For instance, the compliant-fire-safety product needs to have a certificate which can only be validly issued to a Singapore citizen, a domicile of Singapore or a body corporate incorporated in Singapore. This makes sure that the law can be actively enforced, deterring opportunistic merchants who may prey on unsuspecting customers by providing subpar products but escape from law enforcement by remaining outside Singapore. Furthermore, the new Part V in clause 26 of this Bill ensures that the whole certification, supply, installation and sales process meets the standards required. The new section 32 deals with false test reports used for certification. The new section 32A deals with giving false information to the accredited certification body. New section 32B ensures that certification process is only done by those authorised. And new section 32C regulates the supply of regulated fire products, ensuring that people do not advertise non-certified products as certified ones. New section 32D deals with installing an uncertified fire product as well as the manner in which a certified fire product is installed, making sure its quality is not compromised when it is being installed. Some offences, such as new section 32D(4), even have an enhanced offence with a jail term if harm to a person results because of that negligent or reckless act.

Sir, The Straits Times article entitled "Stricter rules and factory checks for cladding on buildings" dated 9 November, 2018, mentioned that, among other stricter standards, builders must conduct site testing for cladding. While the specific standard of conduct is not found in the Bill, the Bill requires certification and that installation be done not negligently and recklessly. Would the Minister elaborate on how and whether the processes required will be raised so as to prevent another unfortunate event, such as that in Grenfell Tower in the UK or CIT Building on Toh Guan Road? Would the Minister elaborate how the stringency of the tests will balance between time and cost efficiency while minimising the chances of a costly misstep?

Clause 17 of this Bill inserts Part IIIB of the Act which regulates alarm monitoring services. The new section 22M requires alarm monitoring services to take all reasonable steps to check if there is a fire before cancelling. This offence reflects the great responsibility and heavy reliance the occupants of the building have on the alarm monitoring service. If the person carelessly cancels the call, the results may be devastating. By regulating alarm monitoring services and requiring a minimum standard of conduct, this Bill increases the teamwork between all stakeholders.

On the issue of resource allocation, how is the Ministry raising awareness of the MyResponder app which allows members of the public to respond or send pictures of a fire? Additionally, how effective are public education efforts on how to manage chute fires, on where to find water sources to put out a fire and on how to react when a fire is at the entrance of the unit? Given the usefulness of the fire extinguisher in the event of a fire blocking the only escape pathway out of a house, what is being done to increase the take-up rate for fire extinguishers?

In the recent months, the number of fires caused by Power-Assisted Bicycles (PABs) and Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) have increased significantly. There were 54 reported such fires in the first six months of this year. That is equivalent to about 73% of the total number of cases last year and more than the total number of such cases in 2017. These fires, at least in residential premises, seem to have increased in severity. Thirty-one people were injured in 36 fires versus 11 people in 23 fires in the beginning of last year. These numbers do not include the fires in July that were also caused by PABs or PMDs based on investigations or preliminary investigations – 3 July in Tampines; 9 July in Upper Boon Keng Road; 14 July in Yishun; 18 July in Bukit Batok which cost someone’s life; 22 July in Ang Mo Kio where three units were destroyed; 27 July, again in Boon Lay Drive. About six fires reported in the media as of 28 July.

The numbers seemed to have increased at a significant rate but, unlike chute fires which are the highest cause of fire, fires caused by PMDs are not easily fought by a layman. These fires caused by PMDs often need firefighting resources and have robbed many a family of their home, property, pets and even a loved one. The potential numbers are astronomical. There were more than 85,000 electric scooters registered at the end of June. Some of these do not have meet the UL-2272 certification requirement. They are like possibly ticking time bombs, unpredictable as to when and where the next fire will happen.

Would the Ministry consider working closely with MOT to hasten the time-frame by which all PMDs must meet the fire safety requirement?

At this juncture, I want to take this opportunity to put on record the stellar work of the SCDF officers. In Jalan Buroh, on 21 June, the SCDF battled for about six hours a fire the size of two football fields, involving an unprecedented number of highly flammable LPG cylinders, fighting hard to contain and to put it out. In Woodlands, on 9 April, SCDF officers forced entry into the unit, rescued a woman, a teenager and two children trapped in the kitchen area, evacuated residents of other flats and put out the raging fire. In the process, one of the SCDF firefighters was injured with burns. In the fire in Ang Mo Kio on 22 July, the SCDF rescued from the burning flat a mother and her young children who were huddled in a room, too afraid to get out after hearing the explosion of the PMD. In the early hours of 18 July in Bukit Batok, SCDF officers in the call of duty wore breathing apparatus, cut through the iron gate, prised open the wooden door, rescuing a man who lay unconscious on the floor and his wife from the burning flat. These are just some examples of the life-saving courageous work that our SCDF officers do. It is not easy, especially when situations do not pan out the way everyone hopes for, yet, these officers continue to be vigilant day in and day out, night in and night out, ready to put out the next fire, risking limb and possibly life, and saving lives. We appreciate the work that they do. And having worked in the GPC, we understand first-hand the good work that the SCDF officers do.

In conclusion, Sir, fire safety is a team effort which is necessary to keep everyone in Singapore safe. It involves the people who design the building, the builders and those who install fire safety devices, those who distribute and manufacture the fire safety devices, those who provide alarm monitoring services, tenants who place items in the passageway or engage in activities that potentially create an unreasonable fire hazard. In all, because no man is an island, I hope that we live together responsibly in our island city, working hand in hand to minimise fire hazards. Therefore, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.51 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a densely populated country with many tall buildings, we must take fire safety very seriously. There are cases when fires occurred in HDB and commercial units and did not spread. That is due to the equipment of necessary fire safety features, strict regulations in our fire safety code on usage of construction material that restricts flammability and permeation of flames and, of course, the efficiency of SCDF in reacting to fire emergencies. I wish to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the SCDF for their good work in keeping Singapore safe.

Older buildings without the necessary fire safety features remain at risk. The UK Grenfell fire disaster, while far from home, remains a stark reminder to developed countries of what could happen if building developers use inappropriate construction material and scrimp on fire safety features. An entire building was demolished, scores of people died, survivors left homeless and in despair. The incident prompted questions and concerns from myself and my colleagues about whether this could happen in Singapore. Over the years, we talked about the need for greater vigilance against fires and, personally, I had advocated for the installation of safety features like smoke detectors in all public rental flats, a project which kick-started last year and is currently underway. SCDF also identified and ordered some buildings to remove external cladding that did not meet fire safety requirements. Today, I am glad to see the results of a comprehensive review that will bring about many enhancements to current fire safety policies. Everyone in the supply chain has a role to play and must be held responsible, not just the engineers, architects or the Registered Inspectors. Contractors, sub-contractors, material suppliers, testing labs – all need to carry out their work professionally and honestly. Those who fall short shall be taken to task by this Fire Safety Act.

As our buildings get older, extreme weather conditions and lack of maintenance could affect and even speed up the ageing process. It is imperative that safety checks are done regularly on these buildings. I am glad to note that SCDF will soon be able to appoint authorised third parties to conduct routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections.

Understandably, SCDF may not have the resources on top of their regular duties, and plan to outsource this operation. I note that these authorised third parties would comprise auxiliary police officers, retired SCDF and police officers as well as other public servants. I would like to ask how often will these routine checks be conducted. What criteria and benchmarks would SCDF use to determine whether selected candidates are suitable for the roles? Would SCDF also consider registered fire safety engineers from the private sector and, if so, would they be required to submit a tender for their proposed services? In some industries, the competition in fees is so fierce that the fees become ridiculously low. As a result, the quality of the checks suffers. I hope SCDF will not let this happen to the fire safety checking profession.

How often will these third-party operations be audited by the SCDF? With the requirement for body-worn cameras, will the footage be reviewed regularly? What are issues that SCDF foresees that would justify the need for body cameras? These inspections and reviews would cost time and resources, so who will pay for it? Will the Government shoulder the expenses or is it the building owner who has to pay for these inspections and rectifications?

SCDF has identified some 500 old buildings to undergo critical fire safety upgrades necessary for public safety. What is the timeframe given for the building owners to comply? And what if they fail to do so? What if they dispute the order and drag out the case? Would this then result in the occupants and visitors being exposed to a fire safety issue whenever they are in the building?

On the other hand, there may be some practical reasons causing failure to comply. Perhaps, the building owner may not have other plans for the property, or he or she could be away and the stand-in is unable to make the financial decisions. What will be done to speed up the process? Can the Minister share the projected timeline for the completion of fire safety upgrades in all these 500 or so buildings? Every single person has an important role to play in fire safety. Should they act irresponsibly and recklessly, thus putting the lives of other people in danger, they deserve a heavier punishment as a form of deterrence. I note that harsher penalties will apply to certain offences that compromise fire safety. But what about the people who practise dangerous PMD-charging habits and put themselves and their fellow occupants and neighbours in danger? We need to hold people accountable for practising unsafe charging practices, selling or buying not original and non-complying PMDs, batteries or chargers. This has been in the news lately and many of my residents are very concerned.

First half year, 49 fires, one death and it is still counting. I hope multi-agencies, SCDF, MOT, HDB and even MOE should come together and take bold and decisive action.

I am glad to hear from the Ministerial Statement just now that MOT will bring forward the compliance of UL2272 PMDs to 1 July next year, but this does not mean there will be no fire incidents.

We need to have more education such as the proper way of charging, use of original parts, non-leaking batteries, non-faulty chargers, and no illegal modifications, and so on. For those who buy or sell non-compliant PMDs or modify their PMDs, they deserve harsher punishment. There are also a lot of people who shop online. How is the Ministry going to regulate this?

Many residents also ask: is there any place that buyers can send their PMDs for checking for compliance, just like Vicom checks for cars. Residents want to be law-abiding, but they do not know how to go about it.

For MOE, I hope you can include compulsory modules in school on safe riding, correct etiquette, and the right way of charging, and so on.

If we cannot tackle the current PMD problem satisfactorily, I would like to give a bold suggestion – ban PMDs totally, PMA excluded. Then step by step, issue licences to those who need them only after they have attended the compulsory courses, passed the exam, bought the third-party insurance.

Just by registering PMDs alone is not good enough. We need the riders to be licensed, and the licenses can be revoked if they cause serious injuries or death. These are the bold and decisive actions that I hope our multi-agencies can serious look into it. Sir, I support this Bill. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I appreciate that the authorities are paying close attention to the fire safety issue. To inspect more buildings, SCDF will train third-party fire inspectors. These inspectors will wear a body camera at work so that SCDF can evaluate whether their work is up to standard. These inspectors are mostly auxiliary police and retired Home Team personnel. Will SCDF hire fire safety engineers? Who will pay for the relevant expenses?

There were 49 PMD-related fires in the first half of this year. I lived in the countryside when I was a kid. I remember that when villagers gathered together to chit-chat, their face would turn whenever the topic of tiger came up. Similarly today at coffee shops, when residents gather together to talk, their face would turn when the topic of PMD comes up. Some will get very angry. One resident said: “In the daytime when I walk on the pedestrian path, I always feel very intimidated. I will have to keep looking to the right and left so that I won’t be knocked down by PMDs. At night, I even have nightmares because I do not know when my neighbour’s PMD will catch fire”. This is the suffering that our residents have to endure ever since the PMDs are introduced into Singapore. I hope that all the Government agencies can work together to solve this problem.

The fire safety standard should be implemented as soon as possible and best if it can be implemented right away. Penalty should also increase. We should also help PMD users to check if their PMDs are compliant to the standard and teach them the correct ways to charge their PMDs.

However, some people bought their PMDs online. How do we regulate that? If we cannot tackle the current safety problems brought about by riding a PMD or charging it, I would suggest we ban the PMDs temporarily. Of course, PMAs are excluded.

In the future, we should only issue licences to those who have attended the mandatory courses and passed the exams, bought third-party insurance, and whose PMDs are compliant to the fire safety standard. Otherwise, how can we ensure the safety of pedestrians and HDB residents? I hope that the relevant authorities can look into this matter seriously. I support this Bill.

5.05 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the fire safety culture in Singapore needs to be improved. There is a common occurrence of HDB bin chute fires, and electrical fires caused by overloading and charging e-scooters and batteries. The density of our high-rise environment makes fire safety critical. As such, I am supportive of the rationale of this Bill to give further authority to the SCDF to require fire safety enhancements to buildings, to regulate fire safety products and to enhance SCDF investigation powers.

Nevertheless, I wish to make some observations and seek clarification on three issues: first, imposing fire safety upgrades on existing buildings; second, the handling of the recent cases concerning non-compliant claddings; and third, the proposed use of third-party officers as routine inspectors.

First, fire safety upgrades on existing buildings.

Under the proposed section 20A of the Act, the Commissioner of SCDF will be empowered to mandate building owners to install critical fire safety upgrades. This will effectively mean that buildings that were compliant with fire safety requirements at the time they were constructed, may have additional requirements imposed on them. In the MHA press release of 8 July, it was stated that in imposing these additional requirements on existing buildings, SCDF would adopt a judicious, risk-based approach in identifying buildings for fire safety upgrades. It was further stated that in deciding whether to impose such requirements, SCDF would consider the buildings’ fire risk profile and factors such as building age, purpose and the profile of its occupants. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary earlier also mentioned earlier that about 500 such buildings have been identified.

Sir, I appreciate the need to have robust fire safety requirements to prevent loss of life and limb and why this additional power given to the Commissioner of SCDF is critical. I also understand the sentiments of Er Dr Lee Bee Wah on this matter just expressed. At the same time, I note that SCDF has mentioned that it would be judicious in its approach. There is indeed a need to assess each older building to determine whether the upgrades are critical for safety, or are good-to-haves which may be costly and have limited utility.

Let me illustrate the point generally. About six years ago, a cluster of seven HUDC blocks in my ward at Serangoon North built in the 1980s underwent privatisation. In connection with this exercise, the residents were advised that they needed to do Additions and Alterations Works to bring the cluster up to the current requirements of the Fire Code. The residents then undertook the works, such as installing fire doors at every staircase landing and making enhancements to their lifts. These works caused ground frustration as they affected residents’ daily lives in terms of inconvenience, dust and lift shutdowns, and also involved expenditure. After the estate was privatised in 2014, discussions resumed to obtain approval for an en bloc sale of the estate. Within three years, the estate was sold en bloc to a developer. If you were to visit the site today, you will see that all the former blocks have been demolished. That leads to a reasonable question: to what end then were the fire safety enhancements made to the old blocks?

Moving forward, while the HUDC privatisation are over, there may be older buildings that are expected to be sold to developers or be otherwise redeveloped. Can MHA elaborate on the judicious risk-based approach that SCDF will undertake in deciding whether certain upgrades are critical?

Next, the recent cases of non-compliant cladding.

The fatal fires at Toh Guan Road and London’s Grenfell Tower were a wake-up call. After the Grenfell Tower tragedy, I filed a Parliamentary Question asking what preliminary lessons could be learned. The Minister’s reply then was that the SCDF would study the investigation report of the London Fire Brigade when it was released, to see if changes to our fire regulations were needed. In addition, he touched on the existing regulatory regime for construction projects, where the registered Qualified Person (QP) was responsible for ensuring that building materials conformed to the prevailing Fire Code. Among the requirements were that all claddings used in buildings had to meet the stringent Class Zero industry standard. It was further stated that after the QP signed off, a Registered Inspector would have to inspect the building to ensure that all fire safety requirements had been met. It was only thereafter that SCDF would issue a Fire Safety Certificate, allowing the premises to be occupied.

It was thus surprising that in the months thereafter, SCDF issued notices to owners of more than 40 buildings that their claddings were non-compliant with the Fire Code. I assume that many of these buildings would have been issued with Fire Safety Certificates by SCDF, indicating that they were compliant with requirements.

Be that as it may, SCDF has since reviewed the regulatory regime and identified points of weakness that led to non-compliant materials being used. These gaps involved the upstream supply chain, from manufacture and storage to testing and supply; there were instances of materials of different gradings being mixed and stored in the same place without proper distinguishing marks. To address this, the Bill introduces the new Part V on regulated fire safety products to tighten those weaknesses in the supply chain.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

Regarding SCDF’s investigations into the cladding cases, I note that for the Toh Guan incident, the cladding supplier and its marketing manager have been charged in court with several counts of cheating and the case is pending before the Courts. Are SCDF investigations still ongoing into other cases of non-compliant cladding being supplied and used, and whether other offences were disclosed?

Sir, whatever happened upstream, the downstream purchasers of these materials may well have been unaware and acted innocently to complete the projects with the non-compliant materials. In cases where Fire Safety Certificates were issued by SCDF before occupation, these parties would also have relied on the certificates to assume they were compliant. SCDF subsequently cited these buildings for having non-compliant cladding, requiring replacement with compliant materials. Could the Ministry explain what role SCDF played in assisting or supporting these innocent parties during the rectification works?

Finally, third-party officers.

I have a query about third-party officers to be appointed. Under the proposed section 8F, Commissioner SCDF can appoint third-party enforcement officers to do routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections. MHA has stated that the rationale for this supplementary resource is to allow SCDF officers to focus on more complex enforcement inspections. These third-party officers would be deemed public servants under the Penal Code and receive the protections under the Penal Code. According to the proposed Section 8F, such persons are to be individually appointed and could include employees of a public authority. Would these third-party officers be restricted to Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, or would foreigners also be eligible for these deployments? At the steady state, how large a force of third-party officers does SCDF expect to maintain?

Earlier, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explained how these outsourced inspectors would take over visits to premises. Is there any concern that SCDF may lose valuable ground knowledge by outsourcing routine inspections?

Finally, Sir, let me conclude. I am supportive of the Bill and would also like to take this opportunity to thank SCDF for its important and life-saving work. Nevertheless, for a better understanding of how the regime would work, it would be most helpful if my queries could be addressed.

5.14 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Sir, the International Technical Committee for the Prevention and Extinction of Fire publishes statistics on fire safety regularly, collated from about 30 to 40 countries each year. Singapore’s fire casualty rates consistently rank among the safest worldwide.

From 2013-2017, Singapore reported an average of 0.76 fires per 1,000 people – significantly lower than the average of about 2 per 1,000. The impact of our fires on human life was also less severe, with only 0.04 fire deaths per 100,000 people; the average is about 1.4 per 100,000. So, we are building on a strong base of fire safety with this Bill.

But I want to highlight an area where we can do more. I propose that with the powers under this Bill, the Government mandate that all HDB flats install home fire alarm devices, with the initial installation costs in existing HDB flats to be paid for by the Government.

As of 2018, we have nearly one million owner-occupied HDB flats in Singapore. Nearly all were built before Home Fire Alarm Devices became mandatory for new flats in June 2018. Like many Singaporeans, I live in an older HDB flat. Home Fire Alarm Devices were not common in Singapore when my flat was built. They were not even a consideration for my parents or the older generation when they moved in. Perhaps we can assume that the vast majority of HDB flats have no Home Fire Alarm Devices.

Sir, the costs of installing Home Fire Alarm Devices in one million HDB flats will be significant, but reasonable compared to other large social welfare programmes. We have seen published equipment costs of $50 to $80 for a Home Fire Alarm Device with a 10-year battery. If we assume the cost to be on the upper end of this, we are looking at a programme cost of about $80 million for equipment, perhaps that amount again for installation costs, and public education, for a total of maybe $160 million. Sir, in the $1.1 Billion Bicentennial Bonus announced this year we gave lower income Singaporeans a cash payout of up to $300. In 2018, there was the SG Bonus which gave all Singaporeans a cash payout of up to $300. We are clearly prepared to spend even larger sums than $160 million on the welfare of Singaporeans. We have the financial capacity. So, why should we do it?

As an economist, I normally find myself suggesting that Government should spend money cautiously and should not interfere unnecessarily in private markets. But I think there are a few inherent market failures in the private provision of fire safety. Singaporeans lack information to make wise choices on home fire safety. There are benefits not just to homeowners, but also external benefits to the community. Taken together, I do not think we will invest the right amount in home fire safety if we just leave it to the private market.

So, first, Singaporeans have little experience with Home Fire Alarm Devices and they do not know the costs and benefits of installing and maintaining these devices. In some developed countries these devices have been mandatory for many years. But not in Singapore. There is a learning curve. There will be, for example, nuisance alarms. Homeowners may have to adjust their cooking habits, such as ensuring that ventilation prevents cooking smoke from triggering the alarm. Education is necessary. We cannot leave it up to the community to make a wise decision just on their own.

Second, there are real benefits of installing Home Fire Alarm Devices to homeowners and to the community. In a recent paper titled "The association between smoke alarm presence and injury and death rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis", published in the Fire Safety Journal in 2016, researchers found that homes with working Home Fire Alarm Devices had half the death rates from fire compared to homes without working devices. Other research finds that Home Fire Alarm Devices are the least likely to be installed or working in homes which face higher risks, such as those occupied by elderly residents.

Third, I am sorry to say, light touch interventions may not help improve fire safety. In a paper titled "Interventions for promoting smoke alarm ownership and function", published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2001, researchers found that programmes that educate the public on Home Fire Alarm Devices have only modest effects in increasing installation rates. Community programmes that gave away Home Fire Alarm Devices actually had no effect. Perhaps there is a psychological explanation. For most of us, a home fire is a remote risk which simply is not salient, PMD fires aside. It is not a financial cost issue for many. It is actually a mental bandwidth cost issue. We have other things to do and installing a Home Fire Alarm is a low priority. If we aspire towards a high rate of Home Fire Alarm installation, I am forced to the conclusion that only a mandatory, Government-funded programme is likely to have significant effects.

Fourth, we have an ageing population that inherently faces higher risks from home fires. Cooking fires are more likely to be forgotten by the elderly. Physical limitations make it more likely that accidents will happen with oil lamps and incense. Some psychological conditions often found in the elderly, such as hoarding disorders, may also contribute to fire risks. Our ageing population also tends to live in older flats, which have older wiring and electrical infrastructure. Assistance devices for the elderly, such as motorised wheelchairs, rely on lithium batteries which must be charged. And if a fire does break out, an older population is less able to react quickly to put out the fire or to escape. The extra seconds or minutes that a Home Fire Alarm Device gives for warning could be critical.

Finally, cost. If we are agreed that installation of Home Fire Alarm Devices will benefit HDB residents and the community then we should do this so as efficiently as possible. I believe there will be considerable economies of scale from having installation carried out by contractors appointed through a rigorous tender process. The contractors will buy in bulk and they will develop standardised processes for installation. This will be much cheaper than having residents individually engage contractors.

Sir, while on the topic of costs, we should be aware that there are opportunistic parties which will exploit our drive to fire safety for private gain. These opportunists take advantage of our citizens’ lack of information on fire safety. Many residents have encountered door-to-door salesmen selling fire protection equipment. Some of these salesmen have falsely claimed to be agents of the SCDF, the local Member of Parliament, or other authorities. The equipment may be sold at grossly marked up prices. Education is no barrier to this. A friend, who has a PhD, bought a fire extinguisher from such a salesperson, thinking that they were acting with the support of the authorities. So everybody can be fooled by this.

Of course, it is good to have fire safety devices at home. But we should try to avoid enriching rent-seekers in the process. Indeed, without proper education, it is unlikely that installed Home Fire Alarm Devices will be maintained effectively. A resident who experiences false alarms because the device is installed too close to cooking smoke, for example, may just disable the device instead of relocating it. I do not think we can rely on these private opportunists to educate the public properly.

Sir, what about mandating Home Fire Alarm Devices in our private condominiums and other private property? I think this is also important, but the economies of scale are very different. There are a huge variety of floor plans and designs of private condominiums and homes. The economies of scale from a centralised, coordinated programme are likely to be much smaller, compared to HDB housing where a standardised process for installation can be developed. Of course, if we can work out a plan for supporting private property owners, we should also consider mandating installation in all residential private property, to make the nation fire safe.

Sir, I encourage the Ministry to set as a Key Performance Indicator the percentage of Singapore homes with working Home Fire Alarm Devices. We should use the powers under this Bill to mandate that all HDB flats install Home Fire Alarm Devices, and to ensure that installation rates are high, we should use public funds to pay for the first round of installation. I support the Bill.

5.23 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is credit to the Singapore Civil Defence Force and to the Government’s approach to incorporate fire safety provisions at the building design stage that we have one of the lowest fire fatalities rate in the world. This Bill will further strengthen our fire safety regime by enhancing SCDF’s regulatory and enforcement powers and optimising SCDF’s resources.

It is commendable that the Ministry believes that, while the number of fire incidents has been stable, the fire safety regulations must be updated regularly to keep pace with the times, especially with evolving fire safety risks. It is crucial to preempt and plug possible developing gaps in the fire safety regime.

There is a developing gap that the Bill may not have adequately addressed. This is a gap emerging from the convergence of three trends: one, an ageing society, two, ageing HDB buildings, and three, the adoption of new technologies.

Back in November 2017, I asked MTI in Parliament whether the batteries for Personal Mobility Devices are covered under the Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations as controlled goods, because the number of fires caused by PMD batteries charging overnight was increasing. Senior Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon acknowledged then that there was a slight increase in incidence of such electric fires and said this was something SPRING could look into.

Since then, the slight increase has become quite a worrying spike. The number of people injured in such fires in residential premises increased to 31 in the first half of 2019 compared to 11 in the first half of 2018. A 41-year old man died recently in July after being rescued from such a fire in a Bukit Batok HDB flat in the wee hours of the night.

The Senior Minister of State for Transport has already addressed the issue of fires related to PMD batteries in the Ministerial Statement earlier. It is good that the ban on the use of non-UL2272 PMDs on public paths has been brought forward. Hopefully, this will greatly mitigate the problem of fires involving PMD batteries.

But even as we solve this problem of PMD fires, there will be unexpected fire safety challenges cropping up in the near future with regards to the adoption of new technology. Our homes are becoming charging points for all kinds of devices and there will be more to come with fast improving drone and smart home technologies.

Furthermore, ageing HDB flats built for Industry 2.0 and 3.0 will face problems with electrical load and lack the most modern fire safety features. An ageing population will also require a rethink of fire safety provisions and contingencies, as seniors are less alert and less mobile in fire situations. I will highlight four issues here in the context of the fire safety provisions enhanced by this Bill.

The first issue is the retrofitting of HDB flats with smoke detectors.

This Bill empowers SCDF to mandate building owners to install critical fire safety upgrades, particularly fire alarm systems. It is said that SCDF will adopt a judicious, risk-based approach and this provision is largely targeted at ageing commercial and industrial buildings.

However, at the same time, the Ministry has acknowledged it is important to install smoke detectors in residential buildings and has mandated the installation of the Home Fire Alarm Device (HFAD) in all new residential homes including HDB flats from June 2018. There is also an exercise to retrofit HFADs to benefit 50,000 needy households in public rental flats for free.

If this is so important, would the SCDF work with HDB to retrofit all public housing flats with HFADs? If it has to be done in phases, as I imagine such a major exercise requires, flats that have undergone or are undergoing the Home Improvement Programme renovations should be retrofitted first. This will benefit the vast majority of the population and protect most Singaporeans.

After all, the PMD fires experience has shown us that neighbours are the ones who need to be alerted early to such quick and ferocious fires, even if the fires are contained by units designed as fire compartments. For example, in a PMD-related fire in a flat in Ang Mo Kio last month, four people had to be rescued from a neighbouring flat, while another 60 people were evacuated. Perhaps a smoke detector would have done the job of alerting the four people early to give them time to evacuate.

The second issue is the consideration of upgrades to cater to seniors living in HDB blocks.

The Fire Code has been revised to require super high-rise residential buildings, which go beyond 40 storeys, to have refuge floors with holding areas at 20-storey intervals and two fire lifts to facilitate evacuation of persons with disabilities and seniors by firefighters. However, even this may not be enough in view of ageing HDB flats and the ageing population.

In a fire on the 48^th floor at Pinnacle Duxton in May 2018, many residents, especially seniors, chose to use lifts to evacuate despite knowing the risk. A senior citizen aged 64 years walked down three floors before giving up and taking the lift. Many ageing HDB blocks are 10 to 24 storeys high. A senior citizen like the one at Pinnacle Duxton who gave up after walking down three floors would face the same problem of evacuating an older, relatively low-rise HDB block.

Would the retrofitting of such blocks with refuge floors with holding areas, say at one of the staircase landing or fire lift lobby of common corridors every four to five storeys, better cater to an ageing society?

We should also be more concerned with HDB studio apartment and 2-room blocks built for senior citizens. These blocks have smaller units that are packed more closely together, which means a fire could potentially spread more quickly compared to other HDB blocks. This is aggravated by the concentration of senior citizens in such blocks.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the SCDF has a separate protocol or plan when it comes to fire incidents in studio apartment and 2-room HDB blocks housing senior citizens?

I have made the point about retrofitting all HDB flats with smoke detectors. I believe studio apartment and 2-room HDB blocks should be prioritised for such retrofitting, as our senior citizens require protection most urgently. Furthermore, the SCDF should extend the HFAD Assistance Scheme to HDB dwellers, especially our senior citizens who reside in studio apartments and 2-room flats.

The third issue is fire safety audit checks on HDB residential buildings.

This Bill will allow authorised third-party officers to conduct routine fire safety and building inspections and these officers would wear body cameras and be subjected to SCDF audits. This is a good move, not only because it frees up SCDF officers for complex enforcement checks, but also because it allows SCDF to scale up routine fire safety checks.

This means two things can be done for ageing HDB flats. First, the frequency of routine fire safety checks can be increased for ageing HDB flats. Second, SCDF officers can focus on mapping the specific fire risks of ageing HDB blocks in light of the ageing population, so that fire safety features can be customized for each block. As the Ministry would know, HDB block designs are very diverse because of our public housing place-making efforts and efforts to cater to different demographic and income groups. But this also means that fire safety risks differ from block to block.

Also, the actions of residents, by placing items in common corridors or modifying their flats during renovations, affect the fire safety risks differently. An ageing population also means that more items will be placed in common areas and more renovations will be done. General rules will apply, but there will be varied situations that require on-the-ground interpretation. This will require SCDF to conduct more complex inspections.

Other than mapping the fire risks of ageing HDB blocks, there is also the need to map the specific risks of HDB blocks with ageing residential profile. With new big data and data visualization technologies, it should not be too difficult for HDB to provide regularly updated information to SCDF on HDB blocks that house more senior citizens across the city. Armed with such knowledge, the SCDF and the police could deploy additional resources to assist in evacuation and support of senior citizens in the event of fire in blocks with higher concentrations of elderly residents. If this is going to be a protocol for the SCDF and the police, it would be important to communicate this to Singaporeans for peace of mind.

The fourth issue is regarding the powers of SCDF officers to enter into HDB flats to investigate and intervene in fire safety violations. This Bill will strengthen the SCDF's investigative powers and allow officers to enter any premises that may have evidence linked to the Fire Safety Act offences. The question is, will SCDF officers be empowered to enter into HDB flats to investigate fire safety violations and what are the likely violations in such scenarios?

I am asking this because I have seen a few cases of hoarding while assisting with constituency work in Aljunied GRC, where HDB flats are piled up high with flammables such as newspapers and cardboard boxes. The residents responsible for the collecting and hoarding of such materials are usually suffering from mental illnesses. Neighbours are understandably very concerned about fire safety. Due to the stigmatisation of mental illnesses, it has been difficult for many of the suffering residents to seek help themselves. Their family members are also at a loss. In one case I witnessed, multiple agencies were involved to try to resolve the matter – social workers from the Family Service Centre, healthcare workers from the Institute of Mental Health, HDB officers, Police officers, SCDF officers, Town Council officers, Resident Committee members. However, there was very little they could do unless the suffering resident volunteered to be helped.

I would expect the number of such cases to increase as the society ages, especially with the increase in incidences of dementia. It is a delicate matter. On the one hand, forceful entry into the premises to investigate and intervene into fire risks may aggravate the resident's condition. On the other hand, the resident and the neighbours cannot be expected to live with the fire risks indefinitely. I would like to ask whether SCDF would use its powers to enter HDB flats in such scenarios to investigate and intervene to mitigate the fire risks and whether SCDF has developed protocols and plans on how to manage residents suffering from mental conditions but causing fire safety risks in an appropriate manner.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, our society is ageing, our HDB flats are ageing, yet we are adopting new technologies that increase fire risk. The spike in PMD fires and injuries caused by the fires is a timely reminder of the convergence of these trends. This Bill is a timely response, but even as we strengthen SCDF's powers we need to review and update our fire safety regime for the trends taking shape in the near horizon. I support the Bill.

5.34 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. I have seen firsthand the amazing work our SCDF does and let me start by thanking them for keeping all of us safe and for risking their lives to save ours. I support the strengthening of SCDF's regulatory and enforcement powers and the increase in penalties for fire-related offences.

The Bill will empower the Commissioner to mandate building owners to install critical fire safety upgrades, such as fire alarm systems. I strongly support this as the fire alarm system provides early warning to occupants and can potentially save lives. A lot of lives. My question is, if we agree that having a fire alarm system saves lives, why do we not have it for our HDB flats? It seems even stranger that we have fire alarm systems in our HDB multi-storey car parks where nobody lives and not in our HDB flats where hundreds of people live in? Why? I know the reply will be that "under our Fire Code, all residential units are designed as fire compartments, typically using fire-resistant walls and floors and fire-rated main entrance doors, to mitigate fire spread." But we know that this is not the case in recent fire incidences.

Sir, majority of fire injuries in 2018 were caused by fires in residential buildings. Worryingly, there was a massive 50% increase in the number of fire injuries from 60 injuries in 2017 to 90 in 2018. All four fatalities caused by fire in 2018 also occurred in HDB flats. Last year, I asked whether the MHA will review the Fire Code and consider including in the Fire Code the installation of central fire alarm systems in HDB flats. Minister Shanmugam responded that all new residential units and residential units undergoing works which impact fire safety will be required to install Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs). This is a commendable move as the alarm will provides early warning to the occupants of the affected unit, so that they can take immediate steps to evacuate or extinguish the fire.

Moving forward, does the Ministry have plans to further require all other HDB units to install HFADs? We still to remember that a HFAD will only alert the residents of an individual unit. Again, without a centralised fire alarm system the only way of alerting other residents in the block of the fire is for our firemen or policemen or perhaps Grassroots, to go unit by unit, knocking on each and every door. This is incredibly inefficient which possibly prolongs the exposure of residents to smoke which is well-known to be the most common cause of injury in fires. According to a study, it is the "inhalation of noxious gases rather than thermal injury" that leads to a fatality. I sincerely hope that MHA will consider mandating centralised fire alarm systems in every HDB block.

Next, to make our HDB flats even safer, I hope that MHA mandates that every unit be fitted with a fire-rated door, even those facing an external corridor. I understand that the current thinking is that for flats, for units that face an external corridor, the smoke will dissipate outwards and away from the other units and hence SCDF's assessment is that there is no need for a fire-rated door to be installed for such units. But this was not the case for the fire that broke out in an Ang Mo Kio flat on July 22, that was raised earlier as well. SCDF said it rescued four people, including three children, from the neighbouring unit while police and SCDF personnel evacuated about 60 people from the affected blocks. This was a HDB unit facing an external corridor and the neighbouring units were affected.

We recognise the effectiveness of fire-rated doors in slowing down the spread of fires and smoke, why then do we not make this a requirement for all units? I understand that there will have cost implications. However, given that residential fires are a real risk, the dividends of our investment in fire-rated doors will come in the form of lives saved and injuries prevented, which is priceless.

For the centralised fire alarm systems, I also appreciate that there might be concerns about false alarms and people tampering with the alarms systems but again in this case, the pros heavily outweigh the cons. Fire alarms in all units, a centralised fire alarm system and fire-rated doors will all help to save lives. I hope MHA will consider my recommendations.

Lastly, with regard to the appointment of third party officers. The new section 8(F) provides for the appointment of "supplementary enforcement officers", or third parties to take charge of "routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections". The rationale behind this amendment is for the SCDF to focus its resources on "more complex" enforcement matters instead. I would like to seek a few clarifications on this new provision.

First, these third party officers have very broad and diverse powers and tasks. Can the Ministry clarify how these officers will be selected and "suitably trained" to ensure they can understand and perform their responsibilities just as effectively as an SCDF officer?

Second, I understand that these third party officers will be subject to audits conducted by SCDF. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share more about the scope and frequency of these audits? Will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister have oversight of the audit findings?

Third, can the Ministry consider implementing a reporting mechanism to ensure that third party enforcement is being carried out in a fair and effective manner? What other safeguards would be put in place to keep these officers in check? Such checks and safeguards will be useful in ensuring that third party officers are compliant with the provisions of this Act and carry out enforcement properly. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill, which will better protect our people from fires.

5.40 pm

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, fire is a horrific event and the amendments to this Act are timely and will strike a balance between empowering the SCDF, which has always been working tirelessly to keep us all safe from the scourge of fire, to continue upholding high fire safety standards and ensuring public safety as well as managing the costs for building owners and industry stakeholders.

In Singapore, most fires are the results of accidents and in some cases, negligence but we should also be on guard against sabotage and attacks, including those related to criminal and terrorist activities. We can draw from lessons from fire incidents in other countries.

First, allow me to comment on the need for critical fire safety features for all buildings. Last month, the Kyoto Animation arson attack in Japan tragically took 35 lives, all employees in their 20s and 30s. The building had just passed a fire safety inspection in October last year but as it was designated a small office building, it was exempted from installing fire sprinklers, indoor fire hose reels and protected staircases leading to external areas – all safety features which could have helped reduce the number of lives lost and which are, thankfully included in this Bill.

Hence, I fully support the proposal to require owners of older buildings to upgrade and install critical fire safety features to keep up with the latest Fire Code. In particular, I hope to see wider adoption of smoke detection and sprinkler systems in all buildings by owners. Such features are necessary regardless of the size or the designated building use. As the Kyoto Animation fire had shown, regulators should not make exemptions as precious lives are at stake and fires consume buildings both big and small.

The Ministry has indicated that it is prepared to be flexible and may accept alternative solutions for buildings which encounter technical problems installing such features. I appeal to SCDF to adhere to its high standards. Understandably, owners will be concerned with costs but alternatives which compromise on safety should not be permitted.

I have a question regarding the evacuation of persons with mobility problems. The new regulations require at least two compartmented rooms for horizontal evacuation, but only for healthcare buildings primarily. What about other buildings? With our rapidly ageing population and integration of persons with disabilities into our workforce, we can expect more persons with mobility issues in our workplaces as well as other buildings, including residences. What provisions do we have in the protected stairways to enable the safe evacuation of the less abled or the disabled?

Let me move on to fire safety products which many other Members have already brought up. Now, fire safety products used in buildings do play a very important role and we are all aware of the examples of the Toh Guan Road industrial complex fire in May 2017 and London's Grenfell Tower inferno just one month later. The external cladding in both cases accelerated the spread of the fire and I and including others have raised this concern in this House previously. Grenfell Tower also had similar deficiencies as the Kyoto Animation building in lacking a fire sprinkler system and having only one stairway, which the survivors later reported were blocked and full of smoke, an indication that the fire doors had failed.

The amendments which are specified in Part V of the Act to empower SCDF to go upstream to punish suppliers which provide non-compliant products and building materials and ban their use is certainly a step in the right direction. Such a move would enhance the fire safety of materials used in new buildings. However, in the meanwhile, what about downstream consequences? Would the Ministry consider conducting from now, spot checks and audits on existing buildings and require replacements should there be deficiencies due to less stringent fire safety standards applied in the past or perhaps because of deterioration over time? I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill and look forward to the clarifications on these issues.

5.45 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the amendments to the Act to empower the SCDF to take a wider range of actions for fire safety, in particular, the enhancement of its investigative and enforcement powers.

Without regular enforcement and meaningful penalties, complacency sets in and over time, increasing numbers of business owners and residents engage in inconsiderate and risky behaviours. These include the failure to maintain fire safety equipment or evacuation routes, allowing the overcrowding of people and goods, and using poor quality electrical devices from suppliers, or using the devices inappropriately. Most fires can be prevented but it requires the cooperation of everyone. We need more consistent public education and outreach programmes to teach and remind all residents of safe practices and installations.

One of the biggest fire safety challenges in residential premises is the cluttering of passageways by plants, household items, trolleys and Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs). I am sure all my parliamentary colleagues have been receiving complaints about this problem. Residents need to be reminded that they must keep a 1.2-metre free passage for emergency access. In addition, no flammable items should be kept along common corridors or in staircases.

I would like to ask the Minister what measures we have in our arsenal against recalcitrant offenders. Some homeowners can be very stubborn and treat the areas outside their homes as their properties. Such obstructions have been the source of inconvenience and disputes among neighbours for many years. So far, it has not been easy to resolve these problems as certain homeowners have been uncooperative and even refused to turn up for mediation. I hope the Ministry could provide tools and avenues to Town Councils and homeowners to resolve such problems expeditiously.

As SCDF wants to focus on higher fire risk areas, it intends to outsource routine inspections and enforcement to authorised third parties, such as retired police officers and other public servants. I fully support this move. I would like to suggest that inspections be stepped up, particularly in residential estates. If the inspectors spot problems in the common areas, appropriate action can be taken, education as priority.

However, it is difficult for inspectors to detect flammable items hoarded within one's home. I am concerned that we will face more cases of hoardings among older residents with our rapidly ageing population. There have been a number of fires due to the large quantities of flammable items hoarded by the elderly in their flats. The behavior of these residents certainly poses a great risk to other neighbours. If these homeowners are unable to modify their behavior, would the Government consider providing them with alternative accommodation with more fire safety features? It is unfair and unsafe to subject their neighbours to such fire risks, especially when these families have young children or elderly with mobility problems.

The last point I would like to make is on the installation of fire alarm systems and sprinklers in our HDB common areas and neighbourhood shops. I appeal to the Government to install and maintain these systems in all our HDB estates, old and new, as an additional safety measure and to minimise potential fire damage. I hope these fire safety systems will become standard features in all buildings in Singapore.

I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

5.49 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Although the number of fire incidents has remained stable in recent years, every fire poses a significant risk to lives and properties. It is therefore imperative that we review and update our fire safety regulations periodically. While I support the Bill, I have a few questions.

First, I support the new provisions in the Bill to empower the SCDF to mandate building owners to install fire safety critical upgrades, if deemed necessary for public safety. Currently, changes to the Fire Code can only be applied prospectively to new buildings, and to existing ones that undergo addition and alteration (A&A) works. But when a fire breaks out and spreads, it does not discriminate between older or newer buildings. Therefore, we must ensure that occupants in all buildings are safe.

However, the costs involved for building owners to comply with the latest Fire Code can be significant. As indicated by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary earlier, there are some 500 buildings that would be required to undergo such fire safety upgrades. These buildings have not undergone any A&A works for some time, and some pre-date even the 1991 Fire Code. It is likely that some of these buildings may require a substantial overhaul to comply with the latest Fire Code. Will the Ministry provide assistance to these building owners to help them become compliant to the latest Fire Code?

Due to our ageing population, these older buildings, some of which are in my constituency, are looking at installing lifts to better serve the needs of their elderly occupants. But since they have not undergone any A&A works previously, major overhauls, such as having to build an entirely new fire escape stairwell, are needed to comply with the latest Fire Code. This presents the building owners with an extremely prohibitive cost, when all they want is to simply build a lift to cater to the mobility needs of their ageing occupants. So, they tell me, "We cannot install the lift because, if we install the lift, we need to comply with the latest Fire Code. But if we do not install the lift, then we are in compliance with the old Fire Code." Can the Ministry look into how we can help these older buildings lower the prohibitive costs of fire safety compliance when undergoing such A&A works?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support also the provisions in the Bill that will provide SCDF with the ability to appoint authorised third parties, called Supplementary Enforcement Officers, to conduct routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections. Singapore is a dense city state. While there is no official census on the number of buildings in Singapore, a study done by NTU in 2005 estimated that there were close to 160,000 buildings in Singapore. I am sure this number has grown significantly in the 14 years since the study was concluded. Allowing SCDF to outsource routine checks would, therefore, allow the agency to better optimise its resources.

However, outsourcing comes with the risk that poorly trained enforcement officers would tarnish the reputation of SCDF. Members would have heard of various issues associated with outsourced enforcement officers. Therefore, it is important that we provide these supplementary enforcement officers with the appropriate training, both in terms of technical skills and the soft skills of engaging building management and members of the public. Could the Ministry therefore share more on the training that these supplementary enforcement officers would undergo?

Beyond training, another way to reduce issues associated with outsourced enforcement officers is to engage officers, individuals, who already have a wealth of relevant experience. This is where the Labour Movement can come in. Our unions have many members who are retired fire wardens, safety officers and facilities management officers, many of whom will be keen to return to work with some form of training. I urge SCDF to work closely with our unions and engage these experienced officers as possible supplementary enforcement officers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while we had a lengthy discussion earlier on PMDs, I would be remiss if I do not raise the issue of fires relating to the charging of PMDs and Power Assisted Bicycles (PABs) in a debate about Fire Safety. With the recent spate of PMD-related fires, it is important that we continue to educate the public on the need to ensure that their PMDs are compliant to the safety standards,and on safe charging habits. While I note that SCDF has infographics about fire safety tips for PMDs and PABs on their social media channels, more work needs to be done to increase awareness, in particular, for those who are not on social media channels. Perhaps, the supplementary enforcement officers could double up their roles and educate the public on proper fire safety practices, when conducting their inspections. SCDF and LTA should also work closely with vendors of these PMDs and PABs to educate their users on the proper charging of their devices at the point of sale.

While education and awareness are important, but they alone are insufficient. I do agree with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah that so many non-compliant PMDs in our housing estates, there is a risk of a PMD-related fire every day. From the investigation into the past PMD-related fires, I would like to ask if the SCDF has found any useful patterns or any early warning signs of high fire-risk PMDs. If so, can we focus our inspections on these devices?

Mr Deputy Speaker, fire safety is the joint responsibility of everyone in the community. So, while we increase the regulatory powers of SCDF as part of our periodic review of the fire safety regulations, it is important that we extend support to those impacted. I urge the Ministry to do more in helping owners of older buildings to become compliant with new regulations, and to engage our unions to employ experienced officers as supplementary enforcement officers. With that, I support the Bill.

5.57 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. It is crucial that our fire safety laws are regularly updated to respond to the changing nature of fire safety risks and challenges, especially in light of the significant number of fires in the last month alone.

I understand that the proposed amendments will attend to some 500 old buildings that are mostly commercial and industrial. However, all four fire fatalities last year took place in residential buildings. The majority of the 90 fire injuries attended to by SCDF last year involved fires also in residential buildings. In addition, a total of 2,411 fire incidents happened in 2018. In contrast, 515 fires took place in non-residential premises. I would therefore argue that there is also a need to update and reinforce fire safety measures in residential buildings, especially for our elderly and disability populations.

In May this year, an 83-year-old woman who was also a wheelchair user was found dead in her Bukit Panjang flat from a fire sparked off by a lit joss stick. The investigation revealed that she was unlikely to have been able to evacuate on her own when the fire broke out. Her daughter, who had gone out to buy lunch, came back to find the flat on fire. Her mother, who had been diagnosed with dementia, was unable to get out of the flat, and succumbed to smoke inhalation. She was one of the four elderly who died in home fires between 2015 and 2017. A 2008 Norwegian study found that those over 70 years old are four times more vulnerable in the event of a fire.

Indeed, the need to address fire safety issues within our built environment is all the more urgent, given that by 2030, one in four of our population will be aged 65 or older. That is 1.8 million people. By 2050, this number is projected to reach 3.08 million. This means that in three decades, 47% of Singapore's total population will be 65 years old or older.

Fires are a particular risk for two vulnerable groups within the elderly segment.

The first group. There are 82,000 people who live with dementia at home. This number is expected to grow beyond 100,000 by 2030. How we support them with fire safety measures could make a big difference to how long they can remain independent.

The second group. There are 103,758 in 2015, approximately 10% of the population aged 65 and above who are illiterate. These seniors may not understand the fire evacuation maps even if they are prominently displayed in their blocks, in the event of a fire.

Fire safety is clearly not the responsibility of SCDF alone – the responsibility is one to be shared across Ministries and the community. I would like to take this opportunity with the debate on this Bill to discuss how we can do more for the vulnerable groups in our community.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is safe to say that one fire that happens is one fire too many. Let us look upstream at some measures that can prevent fires from happening for our vulnerable communities.

First, we should rope in our 250,000-strong foreign domestic workers to be part of this effort because: (a) they are often care-givers to the elderly and disability populations, and children; (b) they are often at home during the day and could prove to be a valuable resource should a fire break out within the neighbourhood; and (c) they themselves are at risk in case of a fire outbreak. Currently, a foreign domestic worker spends a few weeks being trained in their home country on the usual cleaning and care-giving skills. As far as fire safety training is concerned, they are merely taught to inform their employer and call the emergency hotline number in times of a fire emergency. Nothing else. Aside from regular foreign domestic workers, employers also have the option of hiring pre-trained domestic workers who have undergone comprehensive training to take care of the elderly. Under the Eldercare Foreign Domestic Worker Scheme, they learn to assist them in daily activities, tend to them with medication and be trained in first aid. Again, fire safety does not feature in the training programme.

The Safety Guidelines for Foreign Domestic Workers by MOM have a singular focus on window-cleaning, following several high-rise fall incidents in the past. Employers are also encouraged to teach these helpers how to handle electrical appliances and preventive measures such as not touching plugs when hands are wet. Again, fire safety is not included in these guidelines. In addition, Mr Deputy Speaker, our domestic helpers are also not taught how to use a fire extinguisher or the Automated Emergency Defibrillator (AED) or how to evacuate properly in the event of an emergency.

Community programmes organised by SCDF like the Community Emergency Preparedness Programmes focus on essential emergency procedures like fire safety and evacuation procedures among first-aid programmes as well. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think such programmes should be part of the training that our foreign domestic workers receive, particularly those working in households with vulnerable persons. We must equip them adequately so that they have the confidence to act decisively in case of fire and other emergencies which can be very valuable in saving lives, especially when caring for the young, elderly and differently-abled.

Second, we must harness the power of community. As we roll out Dementia Friendly Communities, the neighbourhood is aware of issues arising from dementia and can better support these individuals who live alone. The volunteers, also known as Dementia Friends, could support persons with dementia by checking in on them regularly and advising them on minimising the risk of fire hazards. In addition, fire safety training should also be given to the care-givers of these households, designated neighbours and these Dementia Friends.

Assistive technologies in the home environment such as gas shut-off valves and sprinkler systems are preventive measures. The Fire Code currently provides that sprinklers be placed in certain areas of HDB buildings but in a response to a Parliamentary Question posed in July 2018, MND replied that “SCDF’s assessment at this point in time is that there is no need to install sprinklers within the residential units.” Is there now a new position on this by SCDF, especially considering the 54 fires involving personal mobility devices in the first half of this year – a number that has more than doubled compared to the same period last year?

While I concede that there is a significant financial consideration in installing water sprinklers in each and every household, installing sprinklers in vulnerable households where the resident does not have the ability to quell the fire on his own or evacuate quickly must be an option to be seriously considered. Would the elderly lady on wheelchair, I mentioned earlier, in Bukit Panjang have lived if she had a sprinkler in her flat?

Last but not least, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in homes. Even as the national effort to install smoke detectors in all new residential flats is in place, fire extinguishers and smoke alarm installations are still only highly encouraged by the SCDF, and the take-up rates remain low. Yet, they remain essential tools to stop small blazes from growing bigger. Smoke alarms decrease the probability of fatal fire incidents dramatically. In the US and Japan, after home smoke alarms were made mandatory in 1976 and 2006 respectively, the rate of fatal fire incidents have decreased by 46% in the US and 41% in Japan.

Britain’s Fire Industry Association also found that 88% of fires tackled with extinguishers were put out. While having a mandatory fire extinguisher policy is believed to be difficult because of financial costs, a risk-based approach is needed. Fires happen more often than we think, Mr Deputy Speaker, as shared earlier especially in residential homes. And when they do, the cost of a fire extinguisher pales in comparison to the material and psychological damage caused.

One of my team members shared this story with me as I was writing this speech. Almost a year ago, he was woken up in the middle of the night by his neighbour whose flat had caught fire from an electric short circuit. The neighbour, despite being in a crisis himself, made sure that his daughter alerted the neighbours to leave their homes in case the fire spreads. The swift response by SCDF ensured that everything was soon under control. This neighbour and his family were not allowed to go back into their home until the investigations were over. Besides, smoke had spread throughout the flat making it unsafe to occupy. For a few hours, this neighbour and his family were able to rest in my team member’s flat to clean up and compose themselves before their friends came to take them in for the night, and then weeks after.

SCDF conducted various examinations to determine the origin and cause of fire, the Police conducted their on-scene investigations, and the insurance company surveyed and assessed the fire damage. The neighbours engaged companies for the repair and restoration works including the clearing out the smoke, rewiring of the house and painting. During the ordeal, the neighbour and his family felt like "refugees" for that few weeks when they had to seek refuge with their friends.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a beautiful story of community and kinship in this heartland encounter which is most heartening. Yet the burning question on my mind when he shared the story was: did his neighbour have a fire extinguisher in his flat? He did not. The blaze was so small when it first started from the electric wire, an extinguisher would have quelled it in seconds and the trauma and anguish of many weeks could have been averted.

If mandating for all is not an option, can we consider further incentivising homeowners to equip their homes with fire extinguishers and smoke alarms through offering discounts for conservancy charges or discounts for home fire insurance premiums? Can we offer schemes to subsidise such installations as mandatory for vulnerable households alongside the fire safety training I mentioned earlier?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the needs of our vulnerable groups must be front and centre in policy-making alongside the rest of the population, including when it comes to fire safety. How do we make sure that the elderly and persons with disabilities, or those with mobility difficulties are provided safe evacuation routes in the event of a fire? How can the Deaf, or hard of hearing become cognisant of a fire if they cannot hear smoke alarms? How can persons with mobility difficulties be evacuated off a high-rise building if lifts are not to be used, and they are unable to take the stairs? What more can we do for persons with dementia at home? We may not always have the right answers but we must not stop asking the right questions. For that is the only way for us to fireproof our future as a caring and inclusive society.

At this juncture, I would also like to join my fellow Members to thank the SCDF for the work they do for the country.

6.09 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Fire Safety (Amendment) Bill. In the last two weeks, I witnessed three fires happening in my Boon Lay constituency. One at a rental flat, another at the void deck and one at a commercial shop premises. The causes of the fires across all three incidents were dissimilar and although no one was badly injured, scalded or perished, we should not be lulled into complacency and think that it will not happen to any of us, be it in our homes or at our offices.

I applaud the move in this Bill to introduce harsher and more deterrent penalties for five offences under the Fire Safety Act. In particular, the offences mainly involve the unauthorised change of use of premises which could cause existing fire safety measures to become inadequate, as well as instances where industry professionals such as registered inspectors do not responsibly supervise and certify fire safety work. The penalty for the failure of an appointed Qualified Person to supervise fire safety work will also be raised. Updating and raising these penalties will help address upstream, the causes of fires, and mitigate, if not, eradicate fires in built up areas.

By the same token, I support the enhancement of SCDF’s enforcement and investigative powers to hold responsible those who flout fire safety rules. At present, when dealing with fire hazards, SCDF must first issue a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice and can only act against the errant parties if they fail to comply with the Notice. However, some fire hazards may pose "serious and significant" fire safety risks and where time is of the essence, to nip the problem at the bud. In such cases, I am supportive that SCDF will now have the option to immediately prosecute culpable parties. Its officers will then be able to investigate suspects for fire safety violations and take statements when there is reasonable suspicion of an offence.

Notwithstanding, I have two incendiary concerns and will provide suggestions to these two areas.

First, I am particularly concerned about the types, accessibility and sale of fire extinguishers. These days, you have various suppliers including many e-commerce sites hosted locally and abroad peddling fire extinguishers and fire extinguishing devices. I take cognisance of the fact that MHA will be introducing new measures to tighten control over the supply chain for regulated fire safety products. Can MHA share more about the roles and responsibilities of the different supply chain actors, how the new measures will improve fire safety, and the cost implication of these measures to the industry and to building owners? How about unregulated fire safety products and the control over such? In the same vein, how can the general public and consumer best verify the right type of fire extinguisher to procure and use for their homes, premises and offices and whether there is a way to validate the authenticity and efficacy of these products. In short, for the layman, how to know what type to buy, which size for their premises, from where and whom should they be purchasing the fire extinguishers and fire safety devices and products from.

Second, with increased adoption and installation of smart homes and more people having their own devices to detect smoke, burning and fires, can SCDF make it easier for personal home alarms to be linked to a central community system or even SCDF with the caveat that users have to pay if there is a false alarm or activation where resources are sent to respond to the activated alarm. With that, I support the Bill.

6.13 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, the recent spate of fires in Singapore and the fatal fire in Jurong are timely reminders of the need to ensure that fire safety requirements for buildings remain relevant and effective to respond to fire safety risks. In densely populated Singapore and with the large number of buildings especially high-rise buildings, ensuring fire safety of buildings is key to protecting lives in the unfortunate event of a fire. Crucial aspects of a building’s safety are the possibility of safe escape and compartmentalisation. The condition of the building will also have impact on the speed a fire spreads or whether it is contained.

Although this is an extreme example, the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower in the UK in 2017 is a sad case that demonstrates what could happen when all fire safety regulations of the building failed. From the cladding of the building, the quality of the renovations, outstanding fire safety issues, all these were a combination of factors that led to the disastrous consequences and the unnecessary loss of many lives.

The key amendments of the Bill seek to enhance the fire safety of buildings by strengthening SCDF’s regulatory and enforcement powers to optimise the use of SCDF’s resources and to streamline regulatory processes for greater clarity.

While I am supportive of the Bill, I do have some feedback and clarifications.

The Fire Safety Act, with the tightened safety regulations and certification processes for buildings, if approved, will require older buildings, which have not undergone additions and alterations (A&A) as well as buildings where the occupants are at a higher risk in the event of a fire, to install critical fire safety features. This is in compliance with the latest Fire Code, and it has been pointed out that some 500 buildings in Singapore that were built before the 1001/2002 Fire Code and have a higher occupancy load, require these features.

While we all agree that safety cannot be compromised, the stricter requirements will increase construction schedules and the cost will affect both the building owners and tenants. As fire safety experts, SCDF is best positioned and must take a practical approach to work with building owners to comply with the safety standards while managing costs.

Ensuring that buildings meet fire safety regulation standards is important but equally critical, is the building's fire detection and alarm system, evacuation plans and policy in the event of a fire. As the Bill will empower SCDF to investigate fire hazards and to mandate building owners to comply with fire safety regulations, how does SCDF ensure that buildings have in place appropriate building fire evacuation plans and policies? This is as crucial as the physical infrastructure and fire regulations of the building.

With the strain on manpower, I understand the rationale for the Bill to also seek to empower SCDF to appoint authorised third-party officers to conduct routine fire safety enforcement checks and building inspections. This will allow SCDF officers to focus on more complex enforcement. While the tasks of building inspections and fire safety enforcement checks are routine, they do require SCDF officers to be on the ground and with this, will give them a good feel and assessment of the fire safety conditions of buildings. By outsourcing these tasks to authorised third-parties, I do hope that there will be a balance of using authorised third-parties for these tasks and still have SCDF officers stay connected with the ground conditions and more importantly, the insights of what is happening on the ground.

While the tasks of conducting inspections and enforcements are routine, they are also important tasks to ensure that the buildings meet the fire safety standards. And to this point, how will SCDF ensure the quality of the tasks done by the authorised third parties?

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary did share that there would be measures to safeguard the quality of these parties, and these include audits as well as body worn cameras. Can more details we provided in terms of the benchmarks, criteria and the frequency of such audits? With many Singaporeans living in HDB flats, and giving the rise in PMD fire incidences within HDB flats and the blocks, can Minister also share the fire safety standards and measures to handle fire risks of HDB blocks and flats?

I do want to take the opportunity to also thank our SCDF officers for the work that they do and for keeping Singaporeans safe. To protect lives, it is essential that fire safety regulations stay relevant and that there is continued maintenance and testing of fire safety standards and inspection to ensure our buildings are fire safe. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my comments and clarifications, I support the Bill.

6.19 pm

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am in support of the Fire Safety Bill amendment, which include mandatory critical fire safety upgrades for existing buildings, and tightening regulations of fire safety products and materials sold in Singapore.

MHA should be commended for their progressive and pre-emptive responses to install Fire Alarm Devices, or smoke detectors in short, for new and existing residential premises carrying out fireworks from 1 June 2018.

SCDF, HDB and the People's Association (PA) have also been working together to install smoke alarms in flats let out under the HDB Public Rental scheme at no additional cost to tenants. More than 50,000 households will be covered by this assistance scheme, and installations implemented in phases to prioritise households with one member aged 60 and above.

I understand that there are also ongoing efforts by grassroots leaders and Member of Parliaments to educate residents on fire safety in their homes. It is therefore very regrettable that MHA is not insisting for smoke detectors (HFADs) to be installed in all existing residential premises that are not carrying out fire safety works. This is in spite of the fact that existing homeowners are strongly encouraged to install smoke detectors for their own safety.

I would like to express that encouraging homeowners to practice good fire safety habits is woefully insufficient and does not provide adequate coverage compared to homeowners who already have the devices installed. Consequently, I would like to ask MHA the reasons for the differing treatment and if there are any long-term plans to make smoke detector installations mandatory for existing residential premises?

In 2017, the President of the Fire Safety Managers' Association forewarned that "in many cases of home fires, there have been cases of injuries or death due to smoke inhalation, which could have happened while the occupants were asleep. A localised smoke alarm will alert residents so that they can react to the fire at an early stage."

He also cautioned that the voluntary take up rate of fire alarms and extinguishers in homes has been low, despite encouragement from the authorities. A fire safety expert from a fire safety solutions provider in Singapore clarified that often, the deadliest fires are small fires that quietly smoulder and cause smoke while people are sleeping or are in a different room. Without the early warning provided by an alarm, people can be overcome by smoke even before the fire is discovered.

A 2015 report by the United States' National Fire Protection Association have found that the fatality rate from residential fires in homes with working alarms was 40% lower than in those without. Out of the 4114 fire calls responded in 2016 in Singapore, 68.5% were fires in residential areas, an increase of 62.9% compared to 2015. These fire incidences have resulted in three deaths and 60 injured in 2017, two deaths and 62 injured in 2016.

The predominant reasons cited by the SCDF for residential fires were materials set alight in rubbish chutes, bins or unattended cooking. Recently, we have observed an increase in PMD-related fire incidents. As we can see from the statistics I have cited, smoke detectors would be very effective as a preventive fire safety measure, as they would provide residents with an early warning sign.

So, my proposition to improve fire safety for all residential areas are twofold. A short-term plan would be for the SCDF to introduce a fire safety checklist to raise awareness and level of fire safety standards in homes. Furthermore, the Government should ramp up educational efforts in community and shared spaces on fire safety. Perhaps, volunteers from the neighbourhood watch zone or Silver Generation Ambassadors can be engaged to expedite efforts to encourage the take up of fire extinguisher or smoke detectors.

Consequently, certified smoke detectors, fire extinguishers or fire blankets should be made more accessible and affordable within the community for purchase as they are the first line of defence in the event of fire. For this purpose, a national procurement competition would be very suited to design and introduce a light-weight and all-purpose fire extinguisher easily used by the young and elderly.

Residents may not be aware that water cannot put out grease fire, and also, fire extinguishers are loaded with different dousing agents to fight specific fires. Some extinguishers are ineffective against certain fires, while others could potentially worsen the situation. Having an easy to use and light weight all-purpose extinguisher at hand will infinitely reduce the threat of a fire emergency.

Supermarkets can then be involved with the sale of this extinguisher to make it more accessible. This way, residents will not need to worry if the fire extinguisher they purchase is certified, as there are many types of uncertified extinguishers available online. I then move to ask if the revised Act will cover online sales of non-certified fire extinguishers and how do the authority plan to regulate this.

To continue with my proposition, a long-term plan would involve the execution of a five- to 10-year phase which will introduce new legislation, in view of increasing fire risks from an ageing population and from more extensive use of PMDs. The implementation process may be long, but we need to start with the first step. This new legislation shall include mandatory installation of fire alarms, both exterior along HDB corridors and interior in homes, while concurrently equipping all homes with a fire extinguisher or at least a fire blanket for economical reasons or practical maintenance.

I hope my suggestions provide much needed insight and I look forward to having them considered seriously and implemented.

6.26 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the proposed amendments to the Fire Safety Act. It is important to review our fire safety legislation periodically to ensure that it remains effective in the face of changes in our environment and user behaviour.

The Bill seeks to enhance the fire safety of buildings by empowering SCDF to require building owners to install critical fire safety features, such as protected exit staircases and fire alarm systems. I would like to ask if and how these features can address the problem of rubbish chute fires. Every year, over 2,000 fires break out in residences, with about half being rubbish chute fires. Our older HDB flats are fitted with individual rubbish chutes, which are quite different from the new flats where residents have to dispose of their rubbish through central chute systems. Central chutes are equipped with sprinkler systems to douse fires. However, the older individual chutes do not have these sprinklers. Does the Ministry have alternative safety measures to address this problem? Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Bill seeks to enhance the fire safety of buildings by empowering SCDF to require building owners to install critical fire safety features, such as protected exit staircases and fire alarm systems. I would like to ask if and how these features can address the problem of rubbish chute fires. Every year, over 2,000 fires break out in residences, with about half being rubbish chute fires. Our older HDB flats are fitted with individual rubbish chutes, which are quite different from the new flats where residents have to dispose of their rubbish through central chute systems. Central chutes are equipped with sprinklers to douse fires. However, the older individual chutes do not have these sprinklers. Does the Ministry have alternative safety measures to address this problem?

(In English): Furthermore, we have a higher proportion of elderly Singaporeans living in such older HDB blocks. This is of great concern as they are less mobile, probably less alert and less sensitive to changes in ambient temperatures and the presence of smoke; therefore, they may be slower to detect fire threats. I hope the Ministry would consider ways to protect this vulnerable group of residents.

I am aware that the Government is installing HFAD in all HDB Public Rental flats and the installation of HFADs is mandatory for new residences and existing residential premises carrying out fire safety works. However, this still leaves the majority of residences, both HDB flats and private properties, not equipped with fire alarm systems, although owners are strongly encouraged to install them. Does the Ministry have data on the percentage of homes installed with such devices? Does SCDF have a list of approved HFADs and their suppliers for homeowners' reference? This is important as poor quality devices can lead to a false sense of security, which can be dangerous, or create false alarms.

Another challenge is dealing with fires in very tall buildings. The average height of our buildings has been increasing. It is very common now for our HDB blocks and condominiums to be over 40 storeys high. How prepared are we to deal with fires in such tall buildings, especially the elderly with mobility challenges? Can SCDF work with our grassroots organisations on fire drills and evacuation paths in our HDB and private estates? Would the Ministry share how successful SCDF has been in public education efforts and reaching out to our residents to increase their awareness of fire safety?

A recent spate of fires caused by PMDs has drawn our attention to the risks of these machines, so much so that PMD fires is fast becoming a new fire risk category. I urge the Ministry to work with MOT to implement a national scheme to allow PMD owners to trade in their unapproved models earlier for the approved ones, in consideration of fire safety.

Finally, I would like to request for home fire extinguishers to be made more easily available to home owners. While they can be bought online, if SCDF could work with supermarket chains, such as NTUC Fairprice, to sell fire extinguishers, they would be more readily accessible, especially to the elderly, many of whom do not shop online. In addition, the physical presence of fire extinguishers in these supermarkets would be a constant reminder to all customers of the need for fire safety. I hope the Ministry would consider this suggestion.

I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill and thank all SCDF officers for keeping us safe.

Debate resumed.

6.32 pm

Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members who have spoken and for expressing their strong support for the Bill.

Members have raised many pertinent points on the importance of enhancing the fire safety of buildings and strengthening SCDF’s regulatory and enforcement powers to ensure that the fire safety regime continues to stay robust and effective for a safer Singapore. I will first respond to the comments pertaining to the amendments to the Fire Safety Act, namely: (a) tighter regulatory control over the supply chain for regulated fire safety products; (b) appointment of third-party officers; and (c) fire safety at public and industrial buildings.

I will then discuss the various suggestions Members have made with regard to broader issues relating to fire safety.

First, on the topic of tightening regulatory control over the supply chain of regulated fire safety products.

Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the roles and responsibilities of the supply chain actors and whether the tighter control would increase costs to the industry and building owners. I had earlier spoken on who the supply chain actors are and their respective roles. SCDF has consulted the affected stakeholders and has worked with them to ensure that the due diligence actions required of them are reasonable and practicable. In our view, these actions are not onerous and ought to be done even without the amendments to the Fire Safety Act. For example, certification bodies that certify regulated fire safety products should independently check the validity of the test reports submitted by the suppliers before issuing any Certificate of Conformity (CoC). The amendments serve to crystallise these responsibilities in law and to allow SCDF to take non-compliant parties to task.

Dr Chia asked about the audit regime for buildings. SCDF regularly audits and inspects buildings to check that their fire protection systems are in proper working order. If the systems are faulty, SCDF will not renew the building’s Fire Certificate and the building cannot continue to be occupied. With the proposed amendments, in addition to non-renewal of the Fire Certificates, SCDF will have the power to require regulated fire safety products to be tested and for rectification action to be taken for use of non-compliant products.

Mr de Souza also asked if we are enhancing the standards on the processes involving regulated fire safety products. Indeed, we are. For example, SCDF will henceforth require samples of cladding from each project site to be tested, over and above the current annual tests conducted on samples obtained from the warehouses. This ensures that the cladding panels installed at each building are compliant.

On this note, I will also address Ms Sylvia Lim’s question on how SCDF had assisted the building owners who were required to rectify the non-compliant claddings arising from the Toh Guan fire. SCDF had worked closely with them in their planning for the rectification works and ensured that, in the interim, fire safety is not compromised. Some building owners requested for more time to complete their rectifications. Where possible, SCDF had accommodated but imposed conditions, such as more frequent fire safety checks, to ensure that their fire protection systems are in working order. Arising from the Toh Guan fire case, other than the cases I have just mentioned, there are no other cases ongoing at the moment.

Several Members spoke about the appointment of third-party officers to carry out enforcement tasks on behalf of SCDF. While most support the move to outsource these tasks, some questions were raised on the selection and training of these third-party officers, as well as the safeguards to prevent potential abuses of power and misbehaviours.

This move is intended to allow SCDF to focus its limited resources on higher risk areas, so as to bring about better overall fire safety outcomes. While some inspections and enforcement tasks may be outsourced, I would like to assure Members that SCDF will maintain strong oversight over the work done by these appointed third-party officers.

First, only simple checks will be outsourced, such as checking for any obstruction to escape routes and that emergency lights are in working order. As I have mentioned in my earlier speech, there are about 2,000 such inspections annually. At the onset, these third-party officers will only be able to exercise powers limited to evidence collection and in straightforward cases, such as obstructions of fire escape route, empowered to make enforcement decisions, including the issuance of fire hazard abatement notices. Until we are confident that these officers are competent in their duties, SCDF will continue to issue composition notices and collect fines. And as I mentioned earlier, SCDF is looking to start with a small team of around five third-party officers.

Second, the third-party officers will be selected carefully. SCDF will specify the skills and expertise required and consider past experience in public regulatory and enforcement work favourably. I note Mr Melvin Yong’s point on the availability of experienced officers in the Labour Movement and SCDF can certainly consider them. SCDF will also conduct training for the third-party vendor and will also be responsible for setting and administering the assessment of these officers. Only officers who meet SCDF’s requirements will be appointed.

Third, we have in place safeguards against potential misbehaviours. The appointed third-party officers will be required to don SCDF-approved uniforms and to display SCDF-issued authority cards while on duty. Similar to outsourced inspection officers from NEA, LTA and MOM, they will also be required to use body-worn cameras when on duty. The cameras will allow SCDF to investigate any allegations of misbehaviour. To Mr Louis Ng’s question on a reporting mechanism for these officers, SCDF will require them to report to SCDF Headquarters at the start and the end of their duty, to ensure that they are in proper bearing and to check that they have performed their duties properly.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about audits. SCDF will conduct random audit checks on these appointed third-party officers to ensure that they are professional in their discharge of duties. In addition, the appointed third-party officers will be deemed as "public servants" for the purposes of the Penal Code. They will be expected to perform at the standards required of all public servants and be held similarly liable for breaching their public duties. Any person who has been issued with an enforcement notice may appeal to SCDF. Upon review, if the decision made by the third-party officer is assessed to be wrong, SCDF may modify or withdraw the enforcement action that has been made.

We appreciate the timely reminder from Ms Jessica Tan and Ms Sylvia Lim that we need to strike a balance between outsourcing simple enforcement tasks to appointed third-party officers and still having SCDF officers stay connected with the ground conditions and insights. We will ensure that our officers continue to walk the ground and keep a finger on the pulse of the situation.

I will now address the comments relating to the proposed power for SCDF to require building owners to install fire safety measures. Several Members spoke about the need to balance between ensuring fire safety standards of the buildings and taking a practical approach to help building owners manage the costs.

As mentioned in my earlier speech, we are acutely aware of the cost implications on building owners. SCDF will adopt a calibrated and risk-based approach in identifying buildings for mandatory fire safety upgrades. To answer Ms Sylvia Lim’s question, SCDF has limited these upgrades to buildings that have higher fire safety risks, based on factors, such as the age of the building, its size, as well as the occupant load and profile. Even within this group, building owners will not have to undertake the full suite of upgrades to meet the prevailing Fire Code requirements, but only install selected critical fire safety measures. This will help building owners manage costs.

For example, only healthcare institutions will be required to have at least two compartmented rooms on each floor, as highlighted by Dr Chia. Healthcare institutions have a high concentration of persons with mobility issues, complicating the safe evacuation of all persons out of the building during a fire. These compartmented rooms can serve as safe shelters for those who are unable to evacuate out of the building while awaiting the arrival of help. We recognise that persons with disabilities and the elderly may also be present at commercial buildings, but they are usually not in high concentration and can be evacuated out of the building with the help of other able-bodied persons. Furthermore, these buildings are equipped with fire lifts, which can be used to evacuate persons with mobility issues. Requiring the installation of compartmented rooms in these other buildings may, therefore, impose unnecessary costs on the building owners.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Christopher de Souza asked how SCDF will help building owners with these upgrades and how much time will be given for them to comply with the requirements.

We are mindful that these are occupied buildings and the costs involved can be high if the upgrades required are extensive. We are also conscious of the fact that there may be constraints, such as costs and site limitations, when carrying out upgrading works.

SCDF will work with the building owners to assess the timeframe for compliance, on a case-by-case basis and are prepared to give building owners up to two years to comply with the requirements. SCDF is also prepared to exercise flexibility to help the building owners meet the requirements. For example, building owners may engage a fire safety engineer to propose alternative solutions to address fire safety risks. If more time is required, building owners may also request for a timeline extension and, if there is a definite plan for sale or redevelopment in the immediate future, SCDF may consider waiving the requirements. To mitigate the risks in the interim, building owners may be required to undertake other measures, such as conducting more fire drills.

Dr Chia spoke of the need to ensure fire safety of buildings and appealed to SCDF to adhere to its high standards. Indeed, the public’s safety is not something we will take lightly. As much as SCDF wants to be flexible and accommodating to the building owners, we assure Members that SCDF scrutinises all proposals and alternative solutions carefully to ensure that fire safety standards are maintained.

Ms Joan Pereira asked whether this new power will be used to address the problem of rubbish chute fires. Rubbish chute fires are typically minor and, given the enclosed area where the fire is, have less risk of spreading and a lower threat to human life. In fact, such fires can be easily put out by members of the public. I am heartened to share that in 2018, about 25% of such fires were successfully extinguished by alert members of the public. We will continue to educate members of the public on how to avoid and put out such fires and we will take action against culprits that cause them.

Ms Jessica Tan has rightly pointed out that other than the requisite fire safety measures for all buildings, it is also necessary for building owners to be prepared to deal with fire emergencies, such as having fire evacuation plans. That is why SCDF requires public buildings to put in place certain Emergency Preparedness measures, to ensure a high level of readiness amongst the occupants to respond and evacuate in the event of a fire. The measures include an emergency response plan that serves as a contingency plan for fire emergencies, such as an evacuation plan and the appointment of a fire safety manager to help building owners ensure a fire-safe environment.

As Mr de Souza has highlighted, the definition of "public building" will be amended to refer to any building to which access to the public or a section of the public is allowed. This means that the overcrowding of these buildings, such as places of worship and schools, will constitute a fire hazard and SCDF is empowered to take action to rectify the situation. The definition will also make it clear that even if a building is open to only a specific group of people, it will still be deemed a public building.

We have engaged the building owners who are affected by this amendment and notification letters will be sent after the new law kicks in. We will also work closely with the building owners to implement these measures, for the safety of the occupants.

Let me now move on to fire safety at residential premises. Members have provided several suggestions on improving the fire safety of residential premises, including the installation of sprinkler systems, fire-rated doors, smoke detectors and central fire alarm systems. Indeed, these are useful fire safety measures that can help prevent the spread of fires or enable early evacuation of residents. MHA and SCDF have considered similar measures in the past and deliberated deeply on the necessity of these measures in the context of our residences.

Let me first explain our assessment of the fire safety risk of residential premises that informs our fire safety requirements. Residential premises have a lower occupancy load, compared to industrial and public buildings. And each residential unit is designed as a fire compartment to prevent the spread of fire. Also, residents are more familiar with the layout of the place, fire escape routes are more direct and are designed to have adequate ventilation. Over the years, additional infrastructure, such as rising mains and hosereels, have also been installed to aid fire-fighting operations, too.

At this point, I would like to reiterate the fire statistics. The number of fires at residential premises has decreased by about 14.5% over the past three years. Our fire fatality rate remains low. We have succeeded in reducing it by half, from 0.15 fatalities per 100,000 population in 2014, to 0.07 in 2018. The concerns that Members have raised regarding the recent increase in number of fires, are due to one particular source. That is, PMDs. The Senior Minister of State for Transport has, in the Ministerial Statement, shared how MOT intends to address the fire safety risks of PMDs, through measures like bringing forward the deadline for compliance with the UL-2272 standard to 1 July 2020 and the introduction of a mandatory inspection regime for registered e-scooters. The authorities will also strengthen educational campaigns and outreach programmes on safe charging practices, to enhance fire safety at home. We need to nip the problem in the bud, to stop the fires at its source. And we thus have to strictly regulate PMDs and their usage so as to minimise fire hazards.

That said, MHA and SCDF will continue to evaluate the risk environment, including taking into account our ageing population. We will work with building owners, including HDB, to assess the necessity to put in place additional measures that Members have suggested, such as sprinkler systems, refuge floors for lower rise HDB flats, mandatory smoke detectors and mandatory fire-rated doors, regardless of whether internal or external corridor-facing. We will also keep in mind the potential cost impact on homeowners, should we decide to mandate these requirements, which will require every household to install mandatory fixtures. Households which do not currently have smoke detectors, or which do not currently require fire-rated doors can decide to purchase one on their own, for their peace of mind.

Several Members asked why HFADs are not mandatory for all existing homes and also suggested for HFADs to be connected to a central fire alarm system. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira also spoke about providing support to ensure that private residences have them as well. The purpose of having a HFAD within a residential unit is to provide early warning to the occupants inside the house in the event of a fire, so that they can quickly extinguish the fire or evacuate to safety.

While there may be some benefits to having HFADs linked to a central fire alarm system to provide early warning to the other residents, there are also downsides that I think Members should also be made aware of. Given the prevalence of smoke in our daily lives, such as from cooking or fogging activities, HFADs may give off false alarms. To give Members a sense of the potential challenge that we will face with false alarms, SCDF's records showed that for buildings with central fire alarm systems now, there were about 47,000 alarm activations per year, out of which less than 1% involved a real fire. If many HFADs are connected to a central fire alarm system, the high frequency of false alarms may cause undue stress and disturbance to the residents. We have considered Mr Patrick Tay's suggestion of imposing charges on homeowners for false alarms. While it may encourage greater care from the homeowners to minimise false alarms, it may also drive other forms of behaviours, such as disconnecting the HFAD from the central fire alarm system, or to completely remove them, so as to avoid false alarms. This will then defeat the purpose of having HFADs in the first place. So, a balanced approach has to be taken.

False alarms could be due to reasons, such as non-maintenance of the central fire alarm system, failure of the building owner to request for the alarm system to be temporarily disconnected before engaging in fogging activities, or just simply prank actions by some ill-intentioned persons. Regardless, regular citizens are affected.

While we are not mandating that all existing home owners install HFADS in their homes at this point, we strongly encourage our residents to do so. To Ms Joan Pereira's question on whether there is a list of approved HFADs, we do not endorse any particular model, but we recommend that home owners purchase HFADs with built-in batteries that can last up to 10 years. Some of these HFAD suppliers are listed on SCDF's website.

As Ms Irene Quay had highlighted, to support the needy, SCDF is working with HDB and the People's Association (PA) to install HFADs for existing flats under the Public Rental Scheme for free. This comes up to about 60,000 flats. Installation in existing flats requires the permission of flat dwellers. So far, 12,000 households have taken up the installation after one year of implementation. We will continue to encourage eligible households to come on board this scheme. Ms Anthea Ong had also pointed out that households with hearing-impaired occupants will not be alerted by the typical HFADs which give off an audio alarm. To cater to their needs, we will provide these households with HFADs that give visual alerts instead.

MHA will also study the need to expand the assistance scheme to broader groups of families and will work with relevant stakeholders to do so.

Some Members also commented on the need for fire extinguishers, fire blankets and certified smoke detectors to be made more accessible and affordable and proposed for these to be equipped in all homes. While these are not mandatory, we strongly recommend for homeowners to have them at home. Fire extinguishers, for instance, can be purchased at hardware shops in the malls. To Mr Patrick Tay's question on how the general public can ensure that they are purchasing the right type of extinguisher for their needs, SCDF's website currently includes material on the types of extinguishers and a link to a list of companies registered to perform servicing and maintenance of fire extinguishers. Ms Quay also suggested for a fire safety checklist to be considered for homes. We will take these suggestions into consideration.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh spoke about the fire safety risks arising from hoarding and cluttering of common areas at residential premises. Mr Goh also raised this point, in light of our ageing population.

SCDF works closely with HDB and the Town Councils to address these problems. When SCDF receives feedback on hoarding in homes or the presence of cluttering which may constitute a fire hazard, SCDF will notify HDB or the relevant Town Council and will work with them to rectify the situation as soon as possible. In particular, Town Councils are responsible for the management of the local common areas and they are empowered to take action against recalcitrant offenders.

Ms Joan Pereira asked how prepared we are to deal with fires in high-rise residential buildings and how SCDF can work with grassroots organisations in raising public awareness of fire safety.

Indeed, taller buildings present greater challenges for fire-fighting operations. And this is why the Fire Code requires super high-rise residential buildings – buildings with more than 40 storeys, to have refuge floors or temporary holding spaces. These refuge floors serve as safe shelters for evacuees. In addition, such buildings are required to have at least two fire lifts, compared to only one fire lift in most high-rise buildings. Fire lifts can be manually operated by the firefighters and can be used to facilitate the evacuation of the less-abled and the elderly. This addresses questions raised by Ms Anthea Ong and Dr Chia Shi-Lu.

To address Ms Pereira's point about working with grassroots organisations, SCDF thus works closely with the grassroots leaders on the Community Emergency and Engagement (C2E) Committees and the Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), so that they are familiar with the fire safety facilities and are able to facilitate evacuation.

Several Members have also spoken on the recent spate of fires involving PMDs and the need to enhance the fire safety requirements for such devices.

As I have briefly mentioned earlier, Senior Minister of State for Transport had spoken about MOT's and LTA's plans to bring forward the deadline for compliance with UL-2272 standard to 1 July 2020. MOT is also planning for incentives to encourage the replacement and disposal of non-certified PMDs which have been found to be involved in most, if not all, of the recent spate of PMD fires. I strongly encourage PMD users to switch to UL-2272-certified products as soon as possible, even before the deadline, as the required standard has in place some measures to better safeguard fire safety, such as a system for power supply to be cut off once the battery is fully charged.

As for what PMD owners can do to prevent fires, we encourage users to adopt good fire safety habits, such as regularly inspecting batteries for signs of damage and corrosion and to avoid leaving charging devices unattended for an extended period of time. We will continue to work with LTA to educate the public on good fire safety habits. I would like to take this opportunity to remind PMD users to be vigilant when charging their devices, not to charge their devices or batteries near combustible materials or along escape paths and not to leave their charging devices unattended for an extended period of time.

Other than reviewing and strengthening our laws to ensure the robustness of our fire safety regime, I agree with Ms Anthea Ong that we must harness the power of the community. It is important to focus our efforts in public education and community involvement, to instil good fire safety habits and to help us become a fire-safe community. Ms Pereira, Mr Gan, Mr de Souza, Assoc Prof Theseira and Ms Anthea Ong have also touched on the need for public education in their speeches.

SCDF engages residents during its regular community roadshows and post-fire door-to-door engagement sessions to share fire prevention tips and what to do in the event of a fire. SCDF also leverages these community engagement platforms to encourage members of the public to step up as community responders to deal with small fires in the neighbourhood. Mr de Souza asked about the myResponder app. I am pleased to share that the number of registrations on the myResponder app has increased over the years, going up by 75% in 2018.

SCDF has also developed a suite of educational materials, on various aspects of fire safety, such as "how to use a fire extinguisher", "fire safety at home", typical fire hazards at residential premises and dealing with "rubbish chute fires". These materials are readily available on SCDF's website as well.

At the local community level, SCDF also works closely with grassroots organisations on community outreach events. Private residential premises are also engaged through the Safety and Security Days. We thank Ms Anthea Ong for her suggestion to work with other groups in our society – the foreign domestic workers and community volunteers. Indeed, foreign domestic workers are part of our community and can be valuable assets in ensuring fire safety at homes. We are continually working to improve and enhance our outreach efforts and will take this suggestion into consideration.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a major step towards enhancing our fire safety regime and the safety of the public. I thank Members for their strong support and for the suggestions raised today. MHA and SCDF will study them carefully and work with relevant agencies and stakeholders to ensure the continued effectiveness of our fire safety measures that will keep our public safe. Fire safety is also a collective responsibility. We cannot be complacent and take our low fire fatality rate for granted. MHA will continue with our multi-pronged approach to fire safety, and so, apart from enhancing our laws, we will continue with our outreach and engagement efforts to engage and educate the public on fire safety. Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, I beg to move.

Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her very well considered replies. Many Members asked the Ministry to consider mandating or subsidising various residential fire safety interventions, ranging from fire alarms to extinguishers and so forth. I understand the Ministry has, of course, already considered many of these suggestions and at the moment, I think, most of our suggestions will not be adopted. But I would like to ask whether the Ministry could consider conducting a risk-assessment, cost-benefit exercise and to publish the results of this exercise, considering some of the suggestions that we have made. I think there will be some reasons for this. One is that, this process will enhance fire awareness, it will also allow hon Members and the public to debate these issues more carefully the next time.

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, we will welcome cost-benefit analysis, in particular from learned Members, from academia, to understand the situation better. As I mentioned in my speech, we have already started the installation of HFADs for public rental flats. We have done this for about a year. We have a stock supply of about 60,000 rental flats, after a year of implementation, we are now at about 12,000 households. We will continue to do this. We will encourage eligible households to get on board.

But when we are looking at existing households, we have to seek permission to enter the home to install the HFADs. So, like I mentioned in my speech, we will study the need to expand the existing scheme to broader groups of families. Definitely, the agencies are discussing this. Let us look at our implementation for the public rental flats, let us see what we can learn from there and then we will see how we can expand the scheme if necessary.

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. – [Ms Sun Xueling].

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