Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

6.13 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Sewerage and Drainage Act, or SDA for short, was enacted in 1999, and the last Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill was in 2012. The SDA provides powers to regulate the construction, maintenance, improvement, operation and use of sewerage and drainage systems and the discharge of sewage and trade effluent.

Over the past decades, the SDA has allowed the Public Utilities Board (PUB) to regulate discharges into our sewerage system. This ensures that the used water received at our Water Reclamation Plants or WRPs, can be effectively and efficiently treated and sent to the NEWater Factories for further treatment to produce NEWater. NEWater, an ultra-clean, high-grade reclaimed water, plays a critical role in Singapore's water supply. It is delivered to key customers like wafer fabrication plants and is also used to top up our reservoirs during dry spells.

We have also taken steps to improve our stormwater drainage system over the years. In 2008, we completed the Marina Reservoir by damming up the Singapore River. This alleviated flooding in the low-lying areas in the city centre and provided us with a new source of catchment water. Over the years, we have continued to develop innovative drainage solutions. Just this September, we marked the opening of Alkaff Lake at Bidadari Park, which not only functions as a stormwater retention pond to prevent floods in the Bidadari Estate during heavy rain, but also serves as a recreational space to bring people closer to water.

But our work is not done. Findings from Singapore's Third National Climate Change Study, or V3 study, project that Singapore will see longer and more frequent dry spells by 2100, averaging one every 10 to 60 months. We also expect more extreme daily rainfall across all seasons which will increase the likelihood of flash floods.

As a weather-resilient National Tap less affected by dry spells, NEWater's importance will thus grow and we must take further steps to protect the quality of our used water which affects how we are able to treat it into NEWater. We will also need to ensure that our stormwater drainage system continues to be protected and kept in good working order, so that it can withstand more frequent extreme weather events.

Our proposed amendments to the SDA seek to achieve these two objectives. Better secure our used water system and in turn safeguard the production of NEWater; and also enhance our flood resilience by better protecting the stormwater drainage system and keeping it in proper working order.

We will also introduce amendments related to PUB's operations, to better support their operational needs as Singapore's national water agency.

Let me elaborate on each group of amendments.

First, on securing our used water system. Singapore has an extensive sewerage system with about 3,600 kilometres (km) of sewers and 48 km of Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS). As Singapore develops further, our sewerage system will also expand. Last year, PUB completed tunnelling works for Phase 2 of the DTSS, comprising 98 km of deep tunnels and link sewers. Our sewerage system channels used water from industries and households to our water reclamation plants which provide the treated used water as feedstock to our NEWater factories.

To better secure our NEWater supply, we must leverage technology to better protect the sewerage system and take stronger actions against illegal discharges.

A key feature of the Bill is to support the use of technology to better protect our sewerage system. General Waste Collectors (GWCs) collect sewage, greasy waste and organic sludge for disposal at WRPs. Their tankers need to be registered with PUB annually and they are only allowed to collect authorised waste.

However, some GWCs may illegally collect unauthorised waste or dispose any collected waste directly into sewers instead of our WRPs to avoid paying for the costs of treatment or disposal. In 2021, PUB investigated two such cases, but the cases could not be established as PUB was unable to verify their collection routes.

To deter such illegal actions, clause 42 amends section 74 to empower regulations to be made to impose requirements for these tankers to be installed with tracking and locking devices. These devices provide GPS tracking and geo-fenced smart-locking capabilities to allow the discharge valves of GWC tankers to only open at designated points in our water reclamation plants.

Aside from illegal discharges, our sewerage system is also impacted when contractors physically damage our sewerage system such as when a piling rig punctures a sewer. Clause 42 will also enable regulations to require the installation of tracking devices on piling and soil investigation rigs. This will provide real-time alerts to PUB and contractors if their rigs are near our sewerage system, so that preventive actions can be taken where necessary.

Clause 43 enacts a related amendment to the Public Utilities Act 2001 for large water supply pipelines. Prior to introducing these measures, PUB engaged the industry to seek their feedback. GWCs welcomed the change as they could at the same time use the GPS devices for fleet management. Contractors were also supportive as the GPS devices would help them avoid damaging the sewers during works, which could result in much higher costs and delays.

Since April 2023, the industry has already implemented these requirements. All GWC tankers registered with PUB have installed GPS devices. Tracking devices have also been installed on piling and soil investigation rigs deployed to projects in the DTSS or trunk sewer protection corridor. Hence, the amendments seek to regularise these requirements.

With recent improvements in technology, contractors now have more advanced methods such as probing with plastic drill bits and sonar detection to identify buried services including sewers before carrying out activities like excavation or drilling works. The industry often prefers these advanced methods as they are less intrusive and more efficient than physically digging a trial trench. Clause 9 thus provides for PUB's acceptance of such alternative methods.

Today, we have a suite of end-to-end measures to deter illegal discharges into the sewerage system. Upstream, we have a thorough vetting process before granting approvals for discharge. Our officers conduct regular inspections and monitoring throughout the network. When illegal discharges are detected, we may issue stop work orders, revoke approvals for trade effluent discharge and impose penalties on offenders. We also communicate regularly with companies that discharge trade effluent to remind them of the important role that they play in protecting our sewers.

Thus far, most companies have acted responsibly. But there are some irresponsible offenders, including some recalcitrant ones, whose actions have threatened our used water system.

Illegal discharges can disrupt NEWater feedstock. Toxic and harmful discharge can kill the microorganisms used to treat used water at the WRPs. This results in the water being unfit for further treatment at our NEWater factories. To rectify the impact, PUB would have to temporarily halt the NEWater production process and ramp up other National Taps to make up for these disruptions.

Illegal discharges also jeopardise the safety of the people who work hard to maintain our used water system. When companies illegally discharge high concentrations of volatile organic compounds such as benzene and toluene, workers that maintain our sewers and operate our water reclamation plants may breathe in the toxic fumes. These highly flammable compounds also create fire and explosion risks. Even as PUB takes all necessary measures to ensure the safety of its workers, we should seek to eliminate such hazards in the first place.

PUB also has to expend resources to investigate and carry out extensive sampling to identify the source of the illegal discharge and take remedial actions. This is costly and time-consuming.

To enhance deterrence, we have reviewed the penalties under the SDA and propose to enhance these to ensure the penalty regime remains effective. We will implement changes in two areas: raise maximum penalties and introduce mandatory minimum penalties.

In our review, we considered three objectives. First, penalties should better reflect the severe impact to our water supply. Irresponsible actions can cause disruptions to the NEWater production process. They can also endanger workers operating and maintaining our used water sewerage system and working at our WRPs. Therefore, the penalties should better reflect the gravity of such irresponsible actions. This is done both by raising the maximum penalty and introducing minimum penalties.

Second, the penalty quanta should be substantial enough so that companies are not incentivised to flout the law instead of taking the necessary measures.

Third, the penalty quanta should be generally aligned with those of similar offences in other Acts. For example, we aligned the maximum penalties in the SDA with that of similar offences in the Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999. In setting the minimum penalty quanta, we also considered that several Acts had mandatory minimum penalties of about 20% of the maximum penalty.

The first enhancement is to raise maximum penalties. Clause 12 of the Bill will amend section 16(5) to increase the maximum penalty from $20,000 to $50,000 for repeat offenders who discharge trade effluent without approval or not in accordance with conditions of that approval or regulations.

Clause 13 will amend section 16A(6) relating to the discharge of dangerous or hazardous substances without approval or not in accordance with conditions of that approval or regulations, which causes injury, death, damage to sewers, or severe disruption to treatment, by doubling the maximum penalty for repeat offences. The maximum penalty for repeat offences will thus be raised from $200,000 to $400,000.

Clause 14 will amend section 17(4) to increase the maximum penalty from $40,000 to $100,000 for offences relating to the failure to comply with PUB's order to stop and/or treat the discharge of hazardous substances.

Clause 42 will amend section 74(2) to double the maximum penalty from $15,000 to $30,000 for repeat offences under regulations.

Penalties for sewerage offences, such as carrying out unauthorised sewerage works, will also be raised to match corresponding increases in penalties for drainage offences. These actions impact the conveyance capacity of our sewers and may result in leaks or even sewer overflows, which pose public health and environmental pollution risks.

Clause 7 will amend section 11(4) to increase the maximum first-offence penalties for the alteration of sewerage system without approval, from $20,000 to $50,000. Maximum penalties for repeat offenders will be increased from $20,000 to $100,000.

Clause 10 will amend section 14(4) to increase maximum first-offence penalties for carrying out works affecting or likely to affect the sewer or sewerage system without approval, from $20,000 to $50,000. Maximum penalties for repeat offenders will be increased from $20,000 to $100,000.

Clause 17 will amend section 20(1) to increase the maximum first offence penalties for the damage caused to a public sewerage system, from $40,000 to $50,000. Maximum penalties for repeat offenders will be increased from $40,000 to $100,000.

Clause 17 will also amend section 20(2) relating to damage caused to the public sewerage system, increasing the penalty for repeat offences from $200,000 to $400,000.

The second enhancement is to introduce minimum penalties for four offences relating to illegal trade effluent discharge, across both first and subsequent offences.

Clause 12 will amend section 16(5) to insert a mandatory minimum penalty for discharging trade effluent without approval or not in accordance with conditions of that approval or regulations. This will be $4,000 for the first offence, and $10,000 for repeat offences.

Clause 13 will amend section 16A(5) to insert a mandatory minimum penalty for discharging dangerous or hazardous substances into any public sewerage system without PUB's approval or not in accordance with the conditions of that approval or regulations. Mandatory minimum penalties will be set at $10,000 for the first offence, and $20,000 for the second offence.

Clause 13 will amend section 16A(6) to insert a minimum penalty for discharging dangerous or hazardous substances without approval or not in accordance with the conditions of that approval or regulations, which causes injury, death, damage to sewers or disruption to treatment. This will be set at $40,000 for the first offence, and $80,000 for repeat offences.

Clause 14 will amend section 17(4) to insert a minimum penalty for failing to comply with an order to stop and treat discharge of hazardous substances into the public sewerage system. This will be set at $20,000.

There are other offences in legislation with minimum penalties, such as the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act 1990, which has a minimum penalty for the discharge of oil or oily mixture from ships.

While the intent of the amendments to the penalty regime is to increase deterrence, we recognise that this measure cannot work in isolation. PUB will continue to work closely with companies, including through engagement sessions to share best practices, to ensure that their trade effluent is managed and discharged responsibly.

Next, let me move on to the amendments intended to enhance flood resilience.

In Singapore, we adopt a holistic "Source-Pathway-Receptor" approach to manage stormwater. At source, we try to slow down surface runoff at developments to reduce peak flow into public drains. At locations where stormwater runoff is generated, we require new developments of more than 0.2 hectares to implement solutions. Solutions could include detention tanks or nature-based solutions to slow down stormwater run-off entering the public drainage system.

Along the pathways or the routes through which stormwater is conveyed, PUB designs drains and canals to convey stormwater efficiently. To enhance our pathways, we raised design standards for drains in 2011 to cater for more intense rainfall events. We also implemented important drainage improvement projects like the Stamford Diversion Canal for this purpose.

Finally, at the "receptors" where floodwaters may propagate to and affect infrastructure, receptor solutions provide additional flood protection for buildings and key infrastructure. For example, Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station entrances are required to be elevated above ground level with a minimum crest level to prevent stormwater from entering the MRT stations.

The stormwater drainage is one continuous system – actions affecting one part of the system can have severe impact elsewhere in the system. To provide an example, in 2021, there was a construction firm that was doing road-widening works. In the process, they blocked off a roadside drain and diverted the flow to a new drain section that was still under construction. They did so without PUB's approval and this irresponsible action eventually led to a flood. Traffic came to a standstill for about two hours, 13 vehicles were partially submerged and one person was taken to hospital.

The proposed amendments will introduce measures across the system to improve stormwater management. The capacity and function of drains and reservoirs can be compromised due to unauthorised modifications or obstructions caused by debris and silt. This can cause stormwater to back up and flood surrounding developments. We will raise penalties to deter damage or unauthorised modifications to the stormwater drainage system.

Clauses 21 and 22 amend sections 23(4) and 24(4) respectively to increase the maximum first-offence penalties for the alteration of stormwater drainage system without approval and interfering with drains that cause flow obstructions respectively, from $20,000 to $50,000. Maximum penalties for repeat offenders will be increased from $20,000 to $100,000.

We aligned the penalty quantum to that of section 26 which relates to works affecting the stormwater drainage system.

Clause 23 amends section 26(5) to double the maximum penalty for repeat offenders who carry out works or activities which could affect any stormwater drainage system or lead to the discharge of silt directly or indirectly into any stormwater drainage system from $50,000 to $100,000.

Clause 24 amends section 30(2) to increase the maximum penalty for first offences for causing damage to the stormwater drainage system from $40,000 to $50,000 and raises the maximum penalty for repeat offenders from $40,000 to $100,000.

We want to be comprehensive and consistent in our coverage of activities that may affect the stormwater drainage system. Currently, the SDA only regulates construction activities that affect the stormwater drainage system and non-construction activities in State Land drainage reserves. Clause 22 expands the SDA to also prohibit non-construction activities that cause obstruction to all drains, including those outside of state land drainage reserves.

PUB has silt control powers for the discharge of surface water containing silt from construction activities into the stormwater drainage system. However, non-construction activities, such as sand stockpiles for landscaping works, also have the potential to cause silty discharge. For example, we have seen a case of a contractor improperly storing material like soil and sand near Punggol Reservoir, resulting in silt being washed into the reservoir during rain. Clause 23 amends section 26 to extend PUB's silt control powers to non-construction activities and discharges into reservoirs.

Managing flood risks is a collective effort. With more intense weather events, it is not feasible to expand our drains to cater for every extreme rainfall event. Premises owners and occupiers have a part to play in ensuring the flood resilience of their own premises, which also affects the surrounding developments and connected drainage system.

Clause 20 will introduce new sections 22A and 22B to require owners of premises to keep their stormwater drainage systems, drains and flood protection measures in proper order.

Clause 42 amends section 74 to enable regulations to be prescribed towards these requirements in relation to flood protection measures. For example, requiring minimum platform levels at new developments and redevelopments, and requiring crest levels for all entrances, exits or openings to basements or underground structures like tunnels and underground MRT stations.

Finally, a third group of amendments are technical in nature and relate to PUB's operations to safeguard the sustainability of our water supply.

It has been 12 years since the last Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill was passed. These amendments update the SDA provisions so that they stay relevant and effective in supporting PUB's operations in today's context.

When there are any illegal alterations, works or damage that affect the public sewerage system, stormwater drainage system, or drain, clauses 7, 10, 17 and 21 to 24 provide for PUB to urgently step in to carry out rectification works to restore the function of the public sewerage system, stormwater drainage system, or drain, and recover the cost of the rectification works from the culprit. Currently, PUB is unable to recover the costs if it steps in to carry out rectification works, even when it is clear that the damage was caused by the irresponsible party. PUB can only recover costs if the party responsible for the damage had first defaulted on PUB's written notice to perform rectification works.

Clause 33 amends section 43 to ensure that PUB officers have powers of entry to deal with emergency situations involving public sewerage systems and stormwater drainage systems, such as chokes or pipes that had developed structural defects over time, so that PUB can undertake urgent rectification work necessary for the service or safety of the public. This amendment mirrors existing powers of entry in emergency situations in the Public Utilities Act 2001. Emergency situations are those that involve damage or obstruction to a public sewerage system or stormwater drainage system where PUB assesses that rectification work is necessary for the service or safety of the public.

Clause 34 amends section 44A to allow officers to take videos in addition to photographs and require the production of video surveillance footage, during investigations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of investigations.

Works to sewerage and drainage systems must be completed in accordance with plans approved by PUB, to protect public safety. To ensure this, clause 27 amends section 33 to enable PUB to issue a written notice requiring developments to apply for a Compliance Certificate which will complete the works certification process and penalise those that fail to comply with the written notice.

Clause 29 will amend section 36 to clarify who are the owners or occupiers of premises who may be directed to carry out rectification works. This is aligned with the existing provisions for sewerage matters.

I spoke earlier about protecting our sewerage system. Clauses 9 and 10 will amend sections 13A and 14 respectively to regularise our existing practice of protecting sewers under construction and constructed sewers that have not yet been commissioned. The clauses will require companies to ascertain locations of such sewers to prevent damage to them.

Clause 42 amends section 74 to empower regulations to be made for the issue of stop work orders so as to stop the discharge of trade effluent, when needed to protect the public sewerage system.

When taking over public drains or sewers constructed by other agencies and developers, PUB needs to impose a Defects Liability Period (DLP). Clause 27 amends section 33 to formally allow PUB to impose the DLP and to provide PUB with recourse should defects arise during the DLP or any warranty against defects is not assigned to PUB.

Clause 41 inserts a new section 73A which allows PUB to issue administrative exemptions from legislated requirements on a case-by-case basis, in instances where stakeholders face specific compliance constraints.

For example, new developments with a small footprint might not be able to meet PUB's Minimum Platform Level requirement as this could lead to additional measures, such as ramps required for barrier-free access. In such cases, PUB may allow the installation of flood protection systems, like flood barriers, to give the same level of flood protection.

Clause 40 amends section 70 to provide for composition sums collected by PUB under the SDA to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Clause 38 inserts a new section 60A to make it clear that certain drainage and sewerage systems built on private land do not form part of the land and do not belong to the landowner.

We are standardising and clarifying terms used in the SDA, both through clause 2 which clarifies terms, such as "sewerage system" defined in section 2 and through other clauses which remove overlaps in the use of the terms "sewage" and "trade effluent" throughout the Act.

Clause 26 inserts a new section 32A to enable the incorporation by reference of PUB's Codes of Practice for both sewerage and drainage to enable PUB to enforce the requirements more effectively.

Finally, clause 35 amends section 47 to remove the right of appeal to the Minister in relation to three provisions, where there is already recourse to the Courts.

In summary, we must protect our sewers from damage and take errant companies to task to better secure our used water system. This will safeguard our weather-resilient NEWater tap. We must also protect our stormwater system to enhance flood resilience. This will prepare us to adapt to extreme weather patterns that will come with climate change.

The proposed amendments to the SDA I have elaborated on will provide PUB with the legislative powers to do so, and I invite premises owners, developers and stakeholders to work with us and play a part in securing our water future together. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

6.43 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to voice the concerns of residents living in landed estates of my Yio Chu Kang constituency. This includes those from Lentor Estate and Yio Chu Kang Gardens. Some are worried about the implications of this Bill. While I acknowledge the Bill's aim to clarify and strengthen our sewage and drainage systems, I seek clarification on several aspects. These aspects could impact my constituents and the broader community.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, the requirement for homeowners to maintain their sewerage and drainage systems may pose a considerable financial burden. For many middle-income residents and seniors with no fixed incomes, these costs can represent a significant strain. Faced with increasing cost of living challenges, some residents may feel compelled to defer or neglect essential maintenance. They may opt for the cheapest quick fix rather than a sustainable long-term solution. This approach not only jeopardises their properties, but also risks creating problems for their neighbours and the wider community. Furthermore, it may lead to disputes with neighbouring property owners who may find themselves compelled to cover the costs or, worse, take legal action to enforce compliance.

Can the Minister explain why this Bill does not incorporate a cost-sharing mechanism for private owners, especially concerning shared drainage facilities between neighbouring properties? Such a mechanism would acknowledge the shared responsibility for these critical infrastructure components. What measures will the Government implement to ensure that "asset-rich and cash-poor" households, such as retired seniors, are not disproportionately burdened by these maintenance costs? Financial assistance or subsidies should be considered to mitigate potential hardship.

Additionally, has the Government conducted a thorough assessment of the cumulative financial impact on residents, particularly those in older estates where ageing infrastructure may require more frequent and costly maintenance? To allow residents ample time to adjust to these new financial responsibilities, could the Government consider a phased implementation of these requirements? This would provide residents with the opportunity to budget and plan accordingly.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, expanding PUB's authority to access premises without prior notice in emergencies brings up valid concerns regarding the privacy of residents. While I recognise the importance of swift action in emergencies, we must find a balance between public safety and individual rights.

Can the Minister elaborate on the specific measures that will be put in place to guarantee transparency and accountability in the exercise of these emergency powers? Clear protocols and oversight mechanisms are essential to prevent potential abuses. To avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent application, could the Government provide more precise guidelines defining what constitutes an "emergency" under the Bill?

In addition, how will residents be informed about such emergency entries? Will there be a clear process for residents to challenge the necessity of the entry and seek redress if they believe their rights were violated? Could the Government explore alternative mechanisms, such as requiring warrants in non-life-threatening situations, to balance the need for a rapid response with residents' fundamental right to privacy? If a resident is not at home during an emergency entry, will there be forced entry? Will there be any compensation for such an occurrence?

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, permitting PUB to charge fees for assuming the maintenance of specific drainage systems brings up concerns about possible cost hikes for community amenities and facilities. This could eventually affect overall living expenses. How will PUB establish the fee structure for these services? What safeguards will be implemented to prevent excessive fee hikes that could unduly burden residents and community organisations? To ensure accountability, could we implement transparency requirements mandating PUB to publicly disclose how collected fees are utilised for maintenance and improvements?

Moreover, has the Government considered the potential cumulative impact of these fees on Town Councils and the subsequent effect on residents' maintenance fees? Town Councils manage many shared drainage systems and passing these costs onto residents could create additional financial strain. Could the Government consider waiving or reducing fees for community-led maintenance initiatives or public amenities that serve the broader community? This would encourage community involvement and avoid penalising public spaces and activities that are beneficial for everyone. Since sewage management is a public good, should it not be funded by the Government rather than placing additional costs on residents?

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, empowering PUB to adopt external standards without parliamentary scrutiny may cause some concerns about consistent regulatory compliance for residents and businesses. How will PUB ensure that the adopted standards are appropriate for local communities, especially older estates with unique infrastructural challenges? A one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for all areas. Before adopting external standards, should there be a mechanism for public consultation and feedback to ensure that these standards align with the needs and capacities of local communities and businesses?

What measures will be taken to prevent changes in standards from disproportionately affecting small businesses and homeowners who may have limited resources to adapt to new requirements? Would PUB be required to publish a comprehensive impact assessment before adopting significant changes to standards? This would enhance transparency and would allow for informed decision-making.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, while this Bill offers enhanced management of our sewerage and drainage systems, it is important to address the potential implications for residents and the wider community.

We must ensure that shared responsibilities for maintenance do not become undue financial burdens, especially for vulnerable populations. While emergency powers are necessary for safety, they must be exercised responsibly and transparently, balancing the need for efficiency with residents' rights for privacy. New fees for drainage system maintenance should be transparent and reasonable and the adoption of external standards should prioritise local needs and involve community consultation.

Consistency is key to fair implementation. We need to work together to create a system that serves the best interests of all residents. This is not just about policy, it is about people. I urge the Ministry to carefully consider these clarifications. Together, we can forge a path forward that is equitable, effective and truly reflective of our commitment to the residents we serve. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

6.51 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer by profession, whose practice areas include, but are not limited to, criminal and regulatory matters. I rise in support of this Bill.

The amendments proposed herein are timely, especially since the last Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill, or in short, SDA, was in 2012. Mr Speaker, my speech for today will focus on the enhanced penalties proposed by this Bill, which, in my view, are greatly needed.

In Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's reply to an oral Parliamentary Question during the sitting on 6 August 2019, she shared with this House that since 2014, PUB has prosecuted 119 companies for illegal discharge of trade effluent into the sewers, where the discharge did not comply with the stipulations. Senior Minister of State Khor further shared that of the 119 prosecuted companies, 21 were second-time offenders and another 23 committed the offences more than twice.

The first clarification I seek is for the latest statistics. This will form the backdrop for the enhancement of the penalties sought to be implemented by this Bill. It will perhaps also elucidate the impetus and necessity for these enhanced penalties.

The enhanced penalties proposed by this Bill, if passed, will strengthen the punitive levers to deter illegal discharge and impose harsher punishments. For first-time offenders, there will now be a minimum fine in the sum of $40,000. The maximum fine of $200,000 will not be changed. As for the offenders who commit an offence for the second time or more, a minimum fine will also be introduced in the quantum of $80,000. On the other hand, the maximum fine will be doubled to $400,000.

Mr Speaker, it is a trite legal principle that the punishment must fit the crime. To this end, while I understand from Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's speech earlier on, on how these fine amounts were derived, such as taking reference from other enforcement statutes, such as the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act. But the more important issue would be that, would this be sufficient to deter the targeted illegality?

While we take care to not exact a punishment that would exceed the crime, this must be balanced against the risk that offenders may simply view any fine as an acceptable business cost. This will undermine legislative intent as well as public safety.

Just recently, news reports carrying pictures of a river of red flowing through a canal close to Kembangan MRT station. The sight, by itself, was concerning enough such that members of the public reported it to NEA.

In a 2019 Straits Times news article, PUB had reportedly prosecuted 38 companies in that past year for illegally dumping waste water containing chemicals or other materials into the public sewers. 18 out of those 38 companies, almost half, were repeat offenders. Clearly, repeat offenders have not been deterred. According to PUB, trade effluent illegally discharged into public sewers pose significant risks to public health and the environment.

Mr Speaker, a group of unsung heroes who work tirelessly for the sake of our people and environment, but who are exposed to the risks of such irresponsible behaviour, are our sewerage and drainage workers. The onus is on the Members of this House to ensure that they, too, get to work under safe and fair conditions. Thus, I ask the Ministry if we should also consider mandating business owners to take up public liability insurance?

Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. Sorry, I missed out Mr Louis Ng.

6.55 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): I have to apologise to you as well, I guess, for whatever I have done.

Sir, this Bill will secure our used-water system, enhance our flood resilience and enhance PUB's operations. I have three points of clarification to raise.

My first point is on the introduction of minimum fines. Sections 16, 16A and 17 will be amended to impose minimum fines for offences relating to discharge of dangerous or hazardous substances. Mandatory minimum sentences restrict a judge's ability to exercise discretion in determining an appropriate sentence based on the facts before the court. I appreciate that mandatory minimum sentences can send a public signal on the severity of an offence and serve a deterrent effect.

Mandatory minimum sentences may also signal the Government's view that the sentences imposed by the courts, thus far, have not been sufficiently high. However, there are less restrictive measures for achieving deterrence and signalling to the court that heavier sentences should be imposed. This may include sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Advisory Panel or even statements from the Minister in Parliament on the severity that certain offences should carry. Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on why it is necessary for these offences to resort to mandatory minimum sentences?

My second point is on the recovery of expenses incurred by PUB. Under the current Sewerage and Drainage Act, there are provisions for PUB to recover expenses reasonably incurred by PUB, including from persons who fail to comply with PUB's notices and orders or in cases of emergencies. The Bill will introduce amendments to refine the PUB's powers to recover and apportion costs and expenses as it thinks just.

I support such recovery mechanisms based on the polluter pays principle. These provisions ensure that the cost of undoing any damage done is not externalised to taxpayers. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what is the intended effect of introducing wording that PUB may recover costs it thinks "just"? What criteria will PUB apply in determining when it will or will not recover costs?

Can the Senior Minister of State share how actively the existing cost recovery provisions have been utilised? Can the Senior Minister of State share the quantum of the sums that have been recovered and the types of cases where PUB have taken steps to recover expenses? Can the Senior Minister of State also share whether PUB's intention is to rely on the cost recovery mechanisms more often in the future?

My third and final point is on PUB's powers to enter any premises without notice in cases of emergencies. Under the current Act, powers to enter without notice may only be exercised for classes of premises declared by the Minister to be liable to inspection without notice or where an authorised officer suspects that an offence was committed.

The Bill makes eleven amendments to allow PUB to enter any premises without notice to carry out urgent rectification works in cases of emergency. This is a significant expansion of PUB's powers. Can the Senior Minister of State provide more guidance on what situations constitute cases of emergency? Can the Senior Minister of State also share which individuals will determine whether there is a case of emergency requiring entry without notice? Upon entry without notice, is there a time limit within which PUB is required to notify the owners of the entry?

Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.

6.59 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their interest in and support of this Bill. Let me address the queries and concerns raised under three topics, namely penalties, flood protection and enhancing PUB's operations.

First, on the topic of penalties. Mr Louis Ng asked why there is a need to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for illegal trade effluent discharge. Ms Hany Soh asked how the penalty amounts were derived and whether they would be sufficient to deter the targeted illegality.

Illegal trade effluent discharges have severe impacts on our used water system and, in turn, our NEWater production. They can also pose safety risks to PUB staff. PUB has undertaken much effort to send a strong signal, through industry engagement and publicising enforcement efforts, to reinforce the gravity of such illegal discharge offences. We had also increased maximum penalties in 2012 and 2015, including for three of the offences that we are now proposing to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for.

Despite these measures, there remains a number of recalcitrant offenders. Ms Hany Soh asked for the latest statistics. From 2017 to 2023, PUB prosecuted 90 offenders for 295 trade effluent-related offences in court. On average, about 70% of the offenders prosecuted every year are repeat offenders.

To provide an example, in April 2018, a recalcitrant company was caught in the act during PUB's overnight inspections, discharging industrial used water containing 16 different types of prohibited Volatile Organic Compounds. These compounds are flammable and could cause fires in the sewers and downstream at the Jurong Water Reclamation Plant, thus posing serious safety risks. Additionally, the company's discharge contained heavy metals and chemicals in concentrations that exceeded the allowable limits, which could severely disrupt the used water treatment processes and consequently, NEWater production. Prior to this, the company had already committed 20 offences of illegal discharge over several past occasions. For these acts, under prevailing legislation, the recalcitrant company was fined only $16,600 for two offences.

To give another example, in March 2018, a company was prosecuted for discharging used water containing hazardous substances into the sewerage system at their premises. Prior to this, they had committed offences over four occasions between 2012 and 2015. The recalcitrant company was fined $12,000 for three offences. The recalcitrance of these companies show that the fines imposed on them are clearly inadequate to discourage them from re-offending.

I echo Ms Hany Soh's sentiments that the workers who work hard to maintain our sewerage and drainage system should be able to work under safe conditions. PUB takes all necessary measures to ensure the safety of its workers, including providing insurance coverage for worker injuries. Our amendments will strengthen deterrence to prevent the illegal discharges which threaten worker safety.

Therefore, we are introducing mandatory minimum penalties for illegal trade effluent discharges in order to come down harder on offenders. It will help ensure that, for both first-time and recalcitrant offenders, the penalties are adequate. This is in view of the potential impact to NEWater production. The increased penalties better reflect the severe impact on public safety and our water supply, as well as better align with similar offences in other Acts. Together with the existing suite of measures that I touched on earlier in my opening speech, the increased penalties will help increase deterrence.

Even as we impose heavier penalties to correct behaviour, preventive measures are equally important to avoid having illegal discharges in the first place. The mandatory minimum penalties will work alongside these efforts to deter illegal trade effluent discharge. Let me elaborate further.

Before we grant trade premises the approval to discharge trade effluent, we have a thorough process to review the type of chemicals used and the quantity and quality of discharge from these trade premises. PUB will also assess whether these premises have adequate wastewater treatment facilities to remove their waste or have engaged licensed waste collectors to remove their waste.

We inspect and monitor our sewers 24/7 using a real-time online network of over 100 volatile organic compound sensors at various industrial clusters across Singapore. This is complemented by more than 150 microbial electrochemical sensors for heavy metals and cyanide. If we detect any abnormalities, PUB officers will be deployed swiftly to address the illegal discharges at source and mitigate the impact to PUB's processes.

I urge companies to play your part by properly treating or disposing your waste before discharging trade effluent into our sewerage system.

Next, on flood protection. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the requirement for home owners to maintain their drainage system, the potential financial burden this may pose to home owners and whether the Bill should have a cost-sharing mechanism among private owners who share drainage facilities.

Maintaining a drainage system involves regular inspection and clearing of litter and other debris like leaves to ensure the smooth flow of water through the drains. It also involves repairing damaged drains when they occur, but this would be infrequent. In landed estates, this is a shared responsibility between PUB, NEA and home owners.

For public drains, such as roadside drains in landed estates, PUB has an ongoing programme to systematically maintain, upgrade and rehabilitate them. NEA also performs regular inspection and flushing of these public drains. For private drainage systems, home owners are responsible for the maintenance of their own private drainage systems, such as perimeter drains that run within their properties. Given that private drains belong to the owners of such properties, it is their responsibility to maintain them and it would not be prudent to make use of Government funds to do so. Their failure to repair or maintain their private drainage system could ultimately lead to flooding and property damage at their own premises and neighbouring premises.

Today, legislation already requires home owners to maintain their private sewerage systems and drains. Most home owners already maintain their drains properly today. The proposed amendment in the Bill is to explicitly spell out this requirement.

Regarding the cost-sharing mechanism that Mr Yip suggested, the Bill does provide for this. For private stormwater drainage systems that serve a group of residents, neighbours can arrange amongst themselves to apportion the costs of maintenance. The Bill also provides for PUB to help step in to carry out the works and apportion the costs where necessary, based on the facts of the case.

On drainage, Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked whether permitting PUB to charge fees for assuming the maintenance of private drainage systems could lead to cost hikes for community amenities and facilities. I would like to reiterate that all property owners are already required to maintain their own private stormwater drainage systems. They can choose the most cost-effective way to do so. This allows them the flexibility to choose to do so either on their own or engage commercial providers to assist them.

The situations where PUB may have to step in to maintain these private drainage systems using public funds are rare. This only happens if there is a risk of flooding that may impact the public or neighbouring properties. So, this, indeed, if it happens, is ad hoc. In such rare instances, since public funds are used, it is only fair that PUB charges a fair fee, in line with good financial governance.

As I have explained in my opening speech, actions in one part of the stormwater drainage system can lead to significant impact elsewhere. We seek the cooperation of all premises owners to play their part to keep our stormwater drainage system in proper working order so that we can keep everyone safe from floods.

Finally, on enhancing PUB's operations. Mr Louis Ng also asked what are the costs that PUB can recover that it thinks are "just", when PUB steps in to carry out urgent rectification works instead of a responsible third party.

The Bill provides for PUB to step in urgently, when necessary, to carry out rectification works to restore the function of the public sewerage system or stormwater drainage system and provides the legal powers for PUB to recover the cost of the rectification works from the culprit. This provision applies when there are any illegal alterations, works or damages that affect the conveyance of the public sewerage system or stormwater drainage system. In such cases, PUB will recover the cost of the works that the culprit would have incurred had he undertaken the necessary rectifications himself. This is consistent with the principle that those responsible for causing the damage should bear the cost of rectification rather than for this expense to be passed on to taxpayers.

To give an example, in 2020, a contractor illegally damaged a one-metre-diameter sewer outside Yio Chu Kang MRT station. The contractor was laying gas pipes and had punctured through the sewer, which served a large area of Ang Mo Kio. Conveyance was affected and flow was building up with imminent sewer overflow. The contractor did not have the resources to deploy mitigating measures and PUB had to step in urgently to divert the flow. The diversion cost of about $300,000 that PUB incurred was eventually recovered from the contractor. The cost recovery was done administratively then. This Bill provides PUB the legal powers to do so in future.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about emergency powers of entry without notice. Broadly, they raised concerns on why these powers are necessary, how they will be operationalised, and processes for redress following the entry. Let me address each in turn.

First, emergency powers of entry are crucial to protect public health and safety. A choke in the public sewerage systems may lead to sewage overflow in neighbouring units, impacting public health. A blocked stormwater drainage system may cause flooding during heavy storms, posing safety risks to the wider public and potentially causing property damage to an area.

Currently, PUB must serve a 14-day notice under the SDA before PUB can enter a property to conduct repairs. In urgent situations where immediate action is required to address public health and safety concerns, this is just too long a wait. Damage could already be done. In our experience, most occupiers will readily oblige when PUB explains the situation. However, there is a small number who refuse to cooperate. These powers will have to be used in such situations.

Next, let me address the operationalisation of these powers. PUB officers will only request entry into premises during emergency situations. These are situations when a suspected sewer or drainage choke threatens the health and safety of surrounding units.

In such situations, PUB's authorised officers will obtain the necessary internal approvals to ensure accountability in the exercise of emergency powers. Upon arrival on site, the officers will first seek the consent of the occupier to enter their premises by explaining the urgency of the situation, backed by these emergency entry powers. If the owner refuses, PUB will strive to resolve the situation through other means where possible, such as approaching the owners of other premises further from the choke to request alternative access, and adopting other technical solutions, such as pumping and localised protection. However, these may involve higher cost, more time, reduced efficiency and disamenities to other neighbours. If no occupier is present, PUB's authorised officers would request for the Police to be present prior to entering the premises. After completing the works, PUB will promptly notify the owner about the emergency rectification works and provide contact details for any follow-up questions or service feedback.

I want to assure Members that we strive to balance between individuals' privacy and emergency needs, and PUB will exercise these powers reasonably and judiciously.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the incorporation of Codes of Practice (COPs) by reference. He asked how PUB would ensure that the adopted standards are appropriate and not overly onerous for local communities, especially older estates with unique infrastructure challenges.

I would like to clarify that the new requirements will not be retrospectively applied to old developments. Instead, PUB actively engages businesses and residents in these existing developments that are in flood prone areas to raise awareness on rainy weather preparedness and distributes portable flood barriers to mitigate flood risks for these stakeholders.

PUB's COP on Surface Water Drainage, and the COP on Sewerage and Sanitary Works provide technical information and guidelines for owners of new developments or those looking to redevelop their premises, on planning, designing and constructing the associated systems to ensure that safety and functional requirements are adhered to. These COPs will be incorporated by reference through regulations, giving PUB legal recourse when there are violations.

PUB consults extensively with key stakeholders to develop and amend these COPs. These include professional bodies like The Institution of Engineers, Singapore and the Singapore Plumbing Society, as well as trade associations and other public agencies. This collaborative approach ensures that the COPs are technically sound and practicable.

I would like to assure Mr Yip that we do not adopt a one size fits all approach. For example, the COP on Surface Water Drainage specifies minimum platform levels and crest levels that developments must meet to protect themselves against floods. For developments with links to essential facilities like MRT stations, we will impose more stringent requirements to provide a higher level of protection. In cases where site constraints make it challenging to meet these standards, we will consider allowing alternative solutions such as implementing flood barriers to achieve the same outcomes. In fact, the Bill has also provided for PUB to waive its legislated requirements in such situations.

In conclusion, the Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill is intended to protect our used water system, strengthen flood resilience and enhance our operational effectiveness. PUB will continue to partner with industry, private developments, and the wider public to engender collective action toward these goals. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

7.18 pm

Mr Speaker: Any clarifications for Senior Minister of State Khor? I do not see any.

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. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan].

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