Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.41 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Health, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, tobacco use, including smoking, is a significant public health problem in Singapore. Among risk factors, tobacco use is the second highest contributor to ill-health and premature death in Singapore. More than 2,000 Singaporeans die prematurely from smoking-related diseases each year. The social cost of smoking in Singapore has been conservatively estimated to be at least S$600 million a year in direct healthcare costs as well as lost productivity.

Singapore's long-standing public health objective is to promote and move towards a tobacco-free society. To this end, over the years, Singapore has adopted a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to tobacco control with the aim of, among others:

(a) Preventing or reducing the opportunities for non-smokers, particularly youths, to pick up smoking;

(b) Encouraging existing smokers to quit; and

(c) Encouraging Singaporeans to adopt a tobacco-free lifestyle.

Over the years, measures adopted as part of our multi-pronged approach have included banning smoking in certain public places, restricting tobacco advertising and promotion, introducing mandatory graphic health warnings (GHWs) on tobacco product packaging, banning the use of misleading descriptors such as "mild" and "light" on tobacco products and also imposing taxes.

As a result of these efforts, smoking rates in Singapore fell from 23% in 1977 to 19% in 1984, and further to 12.6% in 2004. However, in recent years, the decline in smoking rates has been harder to sustain. The smoking rates have been fluctuating between 12% and 14% in the last 10 years, with no clear pattern of continuous decline. More than 1 in five men smoke daily and our male smoking rate is higher than that in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. Clearly, we need to do more to stem tobacco use among Singaporeans, with a view to denormalising the use of tobacco products and bringing overall smoking rates to a level that is as low as possible.

To this end, over the last few years, we have been studying best practices in other countries, as well as the recommendations adopted under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) with respect to the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which Singapore is a party to. We have consulted extensively on new tobacco control measures, which include banning displays of tobacco products at the retail point-of-sale, increasing the size of graphic health warnings, raising the minimum age for tobacco and a prohibition on flavoured tobacco products.

The ban on point-of-sale tobacco product displays took effect in August 2017, with the aim of reducing exposure of non-smokers, especially youths, to the advertising effect of such displays, and discouraging impulse purchases. Slightly over a year ago, this Parliament also passed legislative changes to increase the Minimum Legal Age for the purchase, use, possession, sale and supply of tobacco products. Excise duty on tobacco products was raised by 10% last year to further discourage Singaporeans' consumption of tobacco products. We are now continuing with our multi-pronged approach to tobacco control by introducing a measure that the FCTC Guidelines call on parties to consider adopting, and that is the standardised packaging of tobacco products.

The design of tobacco products and packaging is used to promote tobacco products among adults and the young alike. Key elements of tobacco packaging include brand imagery, logos, colours, and of course, the pack design. Cigarette packs serve as a "five-second commercial" whenever the pack is drawn from the shelf or one's pocket, held in the palm of a hand, or placed in full view on the table. Independent research and reviews of tobacco industry documents have found that packaging is an effective marketing medium that helps to build direct relationships between the tobacco company and the consumer through possession and use.

Packaging innovation, design and value packaging are used not only to distinguish products from competitors but also to promote the product, communicate brand values and target specific consumer groups. Evidence suggests that the appeal of branded packaging also acts as one of the factors encouraging children and young adults to experiment with tobacco and to establish and thereafter continue the habit of smoking.

Standardised packaging of tobacco products generally refers to: (a) the strict regulation of promotional aspects of tobacco packaging; and (b) standardisation of packaging elements. This includes removing all logos, colours, brand images and promotional information on packaging, other than brand names and product names (which includes the variants) displayed in a standard colour and font style. It is often accompanied by a third element, namely, the incorporation of prominent mandatory health warnings.

Singapore is not the first country to consider introducing standardised packaging of tobacco products.

Australia introduced standardised packaging in December 2012. According to a study commissioned by the Australian Government, between December 2012 and September 2015, standardised packaging was responsible for reducing the country's smoking prevalence by 0.55 percentage points. This amounted to about 25% of the 2.2 percentage point decline in smoking prevalence during that period.

In 2018, a study conducted by the French Department of Public Health found that one million daily smokers in the country quit the habit between 2016 and 2017. This decline, which was described by the French authorities as "historic", was attributed to a raft of tobacco control measures implemented in 2016, including standardised packaging.

Other countries have also moved towards standardised packaging. The United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and Norway have fully implemented standardised packaging measures. Thailand, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia and Uruguay are at varying stages of implementing standardised packaging, while Canada recently concluded a public consultation on the draft specifications on the proposed measure. Burkina Faso, Georgia, and Romania have passed enabling legislation for standardised packaging, but have yet to announce the date for full implementation. Other countries considering standardised packaging at the legislative or governmental level include Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Panama, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Mauritius.

The role that branded packaging plays in encouraging children and young adults to experiment with tobacco and to establish and continue a habit of smoking is one that is of particular concern in Singapore, where more than 90% of smokers initiate smoking before the age of 21.

A local study carried out by the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to assess Singaporeans' perceptions of current and plainer cigarette product packaging found that the current cigarette pack designs influence both smokers' and non-smokers' perceptions towards various attributes of the cigarette packs. Attractive pack designs were associated with high quality cigarettes and increased likelihood of attracting youth to try such products. Amongst a significant minority of non-smokers, the perceived pack attractiveness was associated with the intention to try smoking.

In contrast, plainer or standardised packs were generally seen as less attractive compared to current cigarette packs. HPB's findings from other local studies also indicated that packs with darker colours and at least 75% graphic warnings were considered by Singaporeans to be least attractive and perceived to be more harmful to health. Health warnings on packs with at least 75% graphic warnings and darker colours were also more noticeable compared to packs with just 50% graphic warnings.

Between 2010 and 2018, MOH engaged in a continuous process of reviewing and evaluating a substantial body of international research related to tobacco product marketing and standardised packaging. The Ministry has also received a range of feedback, comments and concerns with respect to the possible introduction of standardised packaging over the years. All of these have been carefully considered and addressed in detail in two papers published by my Ministry in support of and in response to the public consultations carried out in 2018.

Ultimately, Mr Speaker, our final assessment of the available international and local evidence is this – that the introduction of standardised packaging in Singapore, taken together with enlarged graphic health warnings, or the "SP Proposal", will be effective in achieving five public health objectives, namely: first, reducing the attractiveness of tobacco products; secondly eliminating the effects of tobacco packaging as a form of advertising and promotion; third, reducing the ability of tobacco packaging to mislead about the harmful effects of smoking; fourth, increasing the noticeability and effectiveness of mandatory GHWs; and finally, better informing smokers and non-smokers of the risks associated with tobacco use.

These public health objectives in turn, both taken separately, individually and together, and in conjunction with other existing tobacco control measures, are expected to contribute to achieving Singapore's broader tobacco control aims, which include discouraging non-smokers from even picking up smoking, encouraging smokers to quit, and encouraging Singaporeans to adopt a tobacco-free lifestyle. Ultimately, the Government expects that these will lead to positive future public health outcomes such as reduced smoking prevalence.

It is in light of the foregoing that the Government considers the introduction of standardised packaging together with enlarged graphic health warnings to be justified from a public health perspective.

Mr Speaker, allow me now to please highlight the key provisions that are being proposed.

First, clause 3 of the Bill repeals the existing sections 17 and 17A of the Act and substitutes a new section 17, which enables the implementation of standardised packaging for tobacco products. Under the new section 17, all tobacco products, and the packaging or labelling of tobacco products, must comply with every requirement prescribed in subsidiary legislation, including requirements as to size, appearance, design, health warnings and other information to be stated. Also, tobacco products and their packaging or labelling must not bear any trade mark, term, descriptor, figurative or other sign, feature, scent or sound that is prescribed as prohibited, or promotes the tobacco product by any means that is false, misleading, deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression about its characteristics, health effects, hazards or emissions. The latter is in line with the prohibition under the current section 17A of the Act. The import into Singapore, and the distribution, sale, offer for sale or possession for sale in Singapore, of such non-compliant tobacco products will be made an offence.

In addition, clause 6 of the Bill amends section 37 to empower the Minister of Health to make Regulations with respect to the size, appearance and design of tobacco products and their packaging and labelling, the health warnings and also other information displayed on such products – including the trade marks, terms, descriptors, features, scents and sounds that I mentioned will be prohibited in relation to tobacco products and their packaging and labelling.

As the papers published by my Ministry in support of and response to the public consultations conducted in 2018 have stated, our proposal for Singapore's standardised packaging measures will comprise of two parts. The first will include the removal of all colours, logos, brand images, and promotional information on the retail packaging of tobacco products. All permitted information such as brand names and product names would be required to be displayed in a standard colour and a standard font style. The colour, size, shape, opening and finish of the retail packaging will also be standardised, as will aspects of the appearance of the tobacco product. Secondly, the minimum size of the mandatory Graphic Health Warnings will be increased from the existing 50% to 75% of all specified tobacco product packaging surfaces. Following the passage of this Bill – should this Bill be passed – subsidiary legislation will be made to implement the SP proposal, which will then replace the current Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Labelling) Regulations 2012.

One of the key features of the SP Proposal is the prohibition on the use of any branding and that includes the logos, colours and other features associated with the tobacco brand, advertising and promotional elements, from being displayed on tobacco product packaging or the products themselves. This is the case except for brand names and product names that will be required to be displayed in a standard font and colour, as I mentioned. There have been concerns expressed that this prohibition would unduly impinge on the industry's intellectual property (IP) rights and would not be consistent with international IP law. Let me address this point.

The Government maintains its strong commitment to the protection of IP rights. It is also our view that the SP Proposal is consistent with Singapore's international obligations in relation to intellectual property rights. Tobacco companies' trade marks do not give them absolute rights to use their trade marks. Those rights are subject to legitimate government regulation. In this regard, it is also worth noting that a dispute settlement Panel of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has found that Australia's introduction of standardised packaging measures was not inconsistent with its international obligations under various WTO agreements, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement. The measures proposed in Australia were not dissimilar to what is being proposed in this Bill.

Nonetheless, as a further assurance to rights-holders that the SP Proposal will not affect their ability to otherwise maintain and enforce their IP rights, clause 7 of the Bill introduces new provisions which will make it clear that the implementation of standardised packaging in Singapore will not affect the registrability and registration of tobacco-related trade marks and designs under the Trade Marks Act and the Registered Designs Act. Clause 2 of the Bill inserts a new definition of "trade mark" to clarify that the term has the same meaning as that in the Trade Marks Act.

As mentioned, clause 6 confers on the Minister the power to make subsidiary legislation setting out the details of the packaging measures. The key specifications were set out in the public consultation paper on the SP Proposal, which was published in February last year. In particular, it was made clear that the proposed measures would include standardising both the internal and the external surfaces of all retail packages, standardising the shape and dimensions of the retail package, and standardising the branding and product information allowed on retail packaging, including location, typeface, colours and size.

We recognise and acknowledge that the introduction of standardised packaging will have an impact on tobacco and other related industries. Nevertheless, the positive objectives as well as the public health outcomes that the SP Proposal is expected to achieve warrants its introduction. Should this Bill be passed, to facilitate smooth implementation of the new measures, we will be meeting with manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers of cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products retailed in Singapore to brief them on the proposed specifications for the standardised layouts for tobacco product packaging and other operational issues. Sufficient notice will also be given to the industry of the finalised specifications, and prior to the new requirements taking effect, manufacturers and retailers will be permitted to start producing and selling standardised packs alongside existing packs. This "sell through" period will allow retailers to clear their existing stocks of branded tobacco products and ease the implementation burden.

Next, I will touch on several other amendments in the Bill.

Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 34 of the Act, to allow compoundable offences to be compounded for a sum not exceeding the lower of one half of the amount of the maximum fine prescribed for the offence or $5,000. The latter amount is increased from the current $2,000, which has been an amount which has not been raised since the Act was first enacted more than 25 years ago. This proposed increase aims to regain parity with similar provisions in other legislation and to ensure that the deterrent remains effective.

Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 18 of the Act, to increase the maximum fines for an offence under that section from $5,000 to $10,000 for a first offence; and from $10,000 to $20,000 for a person who has any previous qualifying conviction. This aligns the penalties under section 18 with the maximum fines for similarly serious offences pertaining to the importation, distribution, retail and possession of prohibited tobacco products and imitation tobacco products under sections 15 and 16 of the Act, respectively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, smoking is a major cause of ill-health and premature death in Singapore. The Government is committed to reducing the serious harm that tobacco products cause to individual Singaporeans and to the nation's public health. Our long-standing public health objective is to promote and move towards a tobacco-free society and it is to this end that we have consistently adopted a multi-pronged approach to tobacco control.

We further recognise that continuing efforts in tobacco control are necessary to sustain the declines in smoking rates and also bring the overall smoking rate to a level that is as low as possible.

Based on our review of the evidence and the feedback, MOH is of the view that there are convincing grounds to believe that the SP Proposal is likely to achieve its public health objectives and, ultimately, is likely to operate alongside other existing and possible future tobacco control measures to contribute towards promoting public health through the reduction of the prevalence of smoking in Singapore and thereby constitute a significant step towards Singapore becoming a tobacco-free society.

When introduced, the SP Proposal will form part of a comprehensive suite of tobacco-control measures in Singapore. It will operate alongside other existing and possible future tobacco-control measures to contribute towards our Government's obligations under the FCTC and towards reducing prevalence of smoking in Singapore. This would constitute a significant step towards Singapore's long-standing public health objective of promoting and moving towards a tobacco-free society. I seek Members' support for this Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.01 pm

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Bill, as I have in the past in support of legislative measures that will reduce smoking rates in Singapore. Over the past few years, we have made important strides in curbing the pernicious influence of smoking, through point of display bans, raising the minimum age for smoking, and restricting public areas where smoking is permitted.

I believe that plain, or standard packaging, will prove to be another nail in the coffin for smoking, a habit which has brought grief and misery through ill health to generations of smokers and their loved ones.

The evidence that plain packaging reduces the allure of cigarettes and so reduces improve smoking initiation and may even improve smoking cessation rates, is substantial and convincing. The post-implementation data from Australia, which was the first country to introduce standard packaging for tobacco products in 2012, and also from France, reinforces the efficacy of such a measure. Tobacco companies and the lobby groups associated with them have decried that plain packaging would have little effect on smoking rates except to make life more vexatious for retailers and their customers, but their robust efforts to fight against standard packaging, for example, by launching lawsuits against Australia, proves that this is otherwise. The tobacco industry is running scared, thus underlining the potential impact of standard packaging legislation on smoking rates.

With the passing of this amendment, Singapore will join several countries besides Australia who have already enacted this legislation, and many other countries are expected to follow. Standard packaging is a measure that is endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), which in 2016, on World No Tobacco Day, exhorted all countries to prepare to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products.

There are two concerns that have been raised about plain packaging or standard packaging that I would like to ask the Minister to address, so as to reassure the House that these potential consequences will not come to bear.

First, concerns have been raised that standard packaging of cigarettes and tobacco products could lead to the phenomenon of "down trading", where smokers will just switch to cheaper products as it would be harder to distinguish between various products. This could conversely lead to cheaper products increasing market share and may, in theory, lead to increased smoking due to cheaper products and more affordable products coming to the forefront.

Second, concerns have also been raised that plain packaging could facilitate counterfeiting of cigarettes. Is there any evidence for this concern, and what are the measures to ensure that plain packaging does not play into the hands of counterfeiters?

I look forward to the Ministry's responses on these points, and I support the Bill.

3.04 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I support the introduction of plain packaging for tobacco. Australia was the first country to introduced plain packaging requirement for tobacco in 2011 though the idea appears to have originated from New Zealand.

In recent years, quite a few countries have passed legislation to require plain packaging for tobacco such as New Zealand, France, UK, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, Canada and Uruguay. Other countries are in the process of doing so. I am glad that Singapore is not far behind in this.

According to studies done, the idea of plain packaging is to prevent or reduce any positive association of branding with the consumption of tobacco. It seems that such positive association of branding will attract young people who are new to smoking, even giving such false sense of glamour associated with certain brands.

According to the studies, requiring the use of standard unattractive colours, reducing font sizes for brand name, highlighting or magnifying health warnings, are effective in deterring new smokers. MOH's requirement of health warning by way of graphic images will definitely contribute to the deglamourising of smoking for the young.

According to reports from Australia, the use of plain packaging seemed to have reduced smoking among young people, as people found that their packaging was not attractive. Some even had the impression cigarettes in plain packaging had tasted worse.

Many people picked up smoking when they were young, including in the case of Singapore during National Service. Together with the recent increase in the legal age for smoking to eventually 21 years, I hope that the introduction of plain packaging will, like in Australia or elsewhere, help to discourage more young people from picking up smoking.

On the other hand, we also read of attempts of tobacco companies in other countries to work around the limitations of plain packaging by, for example, introducing features to maintain product appeal, even when so in plain packaging, such as resealable in a foiled preserved freshness and innovative filters. Some had tried to have unique packaging which should not appear to meet the minimum size required for health information on the side or packs. It seems that these design tweaks are important for some of these tobacco companies as they appeal to young adults and may lead to increased sales.

I also read that in some countries, tobacco companies were given a relatively long time to get rid of their existing stocks and to transit to plain packaging and that some companies also deliberately stalled on the introduction of plain packaging or were not cooperative. In neither of these cases, tobacco companies took the opportunity to maximise the publicity of outgoing branding and attempted to desensitise smokers to the change in packaging.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, given the experience of other countries in introducing plain packaging, what are the Government's plans to deter tobacco companies from going around the requirements of the new legislation such as packaging requirements, or even to deal with any attempts by tobacco companies to delay the introduction of new packaging requirements.

I would also like to know what are the Government's plans for the tobacco companies' and retailers' transition to the new packaging. How much time will they have? There should be a good balance struck between giving tobacco companies sufficient transition time but not any longer so that these companies will not have more time to plan their marketing to work around the limitations of the new packaging requirements.

I would also like to ask the Government whether the new rules on plain packaging will be inconsistent with current practice of allowing people to bring in cigarettes from foreign countries by declaring and paying tariffs for such cigarettes. Does the Government intend to introduce changes to the law to deal with any of such inconsistency?

Finally, I would also like to know whether and how the new packaging requirements will affect tobacco companies in limiting their flexibility in the use of cigarette sizes as a way of product differentiation or to target certain segments such as slim size for ladies. Does the Government have any plans to standardise the size of cigarettes being sold? Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.10 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) Bill

Debate resumed.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin by complimenting the Government’s intensive efforts in discouraging tobacco use in recent years. From expanding no-smoking zones to regulating displays of tobacco sales to increasing the minimum legal age of buying cigarettes and more. The Government has shown its commitment to the tobacco-free movement.

In November last year, the Government revealed plans to standardise the packaging of tobacco. By 2020, tobacco sold in Singapore must be packaged in drab colours, dropping logos, brand images and all other promotional information, while the size of the graphic warning is increased.

This follows in the footsteps of countries like Australia, France, the UK and many others which have adopted similar standardised packaging policies. With today’s Bill, we will be a major step closer to this goal.

The last press release from MOH stated that a transition period will be provided to allow manufacturers and retailers to sell their old stock. How long is this transition period? I am concerned about the vendors who sell cigarettes in the small provision shops and mama shops in the heartlands and the bus stops. Many of the shop keepers are elderly, and they are already facing many challenges to keep their business afloat. Has the Ministry reached out to them to help them understand the new regulations and to check if they would have trouble meeting the established deadlines?

In the meantime, I would like to take the opportunity to urge the Government to consider adding designated smoking points (DSPs) to more places, especially in the heartlands. In the last update on this issue in February 2018 , the Senior Minister of State said she will look into the results of the study of Orchard Road to see how this project can be expanded. However, Orchard Road and the heartlands are rather different in demographic and environment, amongst many other things.

Today, Nee Soon South is covered by 50 DSPs. This cost us about half a million dollars, raised from private donors. But I think it was worth it. We can shield the vulnerable from second hand smoke. Children will also not be over-exposed to the sight of people smoking, preventing the normalising of smoking in their minds. At the same time, smokers’ needs are met too. The reality is that some smokers simply will not quit. They have told me that they appreciate the DSPs. It helps them reduce the times they smoke at home, which exposes their family to second hand smoke, or can lead to disputes with neighbours.

In fact, from time to time, I do receive requests and emails from residents from other parts of Singapore asking for DSPs.

Therefore, I hope the Government will seriously look into having more DSPs in residential areas. Furthermore, I hope the Government will allow the Community Improvement Projects Committee fund to be used for the construction and maintenance of DSPs. I believe DSPs will certainly be win-win for both smokers and non-smokers.

Next, I wish to share my concerns about the increasing popularity of contraband cigarettes. This is inevitable as regulations concerning tobacco get tighter and cigarettes become more expensive. In the past months, the Singapore Police Force has conducted raids turning up large numbers of contraband cigarettes. Industrial areas and foreign-worker dormitories were among the places targeted.

I understand that the Singapore Customs also conducts island wide enforcement operations. While I applaud these organisations for their diligence, I would like to know how these cigarettes were smuggled in, and what is being done about it. I note that the proposed amendments include imposing heavier penalties on illegal import of tobacco products, and I hope that this will serve as some form of deterrence. But what if the couriers working for the syndicate are being assured that their fines would be paid for if caught? Why do we not add in a jail term? A news report in 2017 revealed that illegal syndicates hire foreign workers to deliver the contraband cigarettes. Has there been an improvement in the situation since?

Exposure to cigarettes and smoking among foreign workers is also an issue we should be concerned about.

I hope that the Ministry is working with dormitory operators and contractor companies to reach out to these workers to advise them about the laws concerning smoking in Singapore, and the unhealthy effects of smoking and second-hand smoke. These workers come to Singapore to seek a better living for themselves and their families, and it would be a shame for them to squander the money away on vices and picking up poor health that could have a negative impact on their health in the long run.

In fact, some of these foreign workers are living in our HDB units and smoke along corridor. Just last week, I had a house visit, and a mother shared with me her agony. She has three young children, and the unit beside hers is rented out to several foreign workers. She said that almost every night, they smoke along the corridor, and the smoke drifts to her unit. She was so afraid that the second-hand smoke would have ill effect on the health of her three young children. As a mother, I can fully understand her desire to protect her children. So, in this case. I alerted NEA and asked them to step up enforcement action because smoking along the corridor is not permitted under the current law. On this note, I would like to once again bring up the increasing complaints of neighbours smoking in their own units and the smoke drifting to the neighbours' units and affecting the neighbours. Is the NEA determined to do something about it? Or is the MOH determined to do something about it?

I know that smoking is a personal choice, just like you can have parties in your own home so long as the noise generated do not affect the neighbours. So, you can smoke in your own home, but the smoke should not affect your neighbours. Of course, we hope that the neighbours can be more considerate and think of the neighbours before they light up the cigarette – perhaps make use of the DSPs, or walk further away, but I really hope that the MOH can work with the NEA to come up together to address this issue. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am glad that the Government is continuously introducing new measures to reduce the smoking rate. It is a good idea to ban eye-catching cigarette packaging. I hope the Government can show some understanding towards small provision shops by allowing them sufficient time to sell their old stock.

This amendment will increase the fine on contraband cigarettes. However, successful cigarette-smuggling has big profits in it and, hence, fines are not enough to deter cigarette-smuggling. If we impose jail terms, the deterrent effect will be much stronger.

Although we hope that all can quit smoking, surely there will be some people who cannot kick the habit. I hope that the Government can consider setting up more Designated Smoking Points (DSPs) to protect others from the harmful effects of second-hand smoking. In Yishun South, the feedback on our DSPs is very positive. I hope the Government will allow the Community Improvement Project Committee Fund to be used for the construction and the maintenance of the DSPs.

(In English): I support the Motion.

3.41 pm

Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Bill. This proposed move towards clean packaging will align Singapore with the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control along with countries such as Australia, France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, which have also mandated standardised packaging for tobacco products.

I would like to commend the Ministry of Health for its considerable preparatory work in proposing these changes, referencing over 200 studies and holding three rounds of public consultations. Such a concerted effort to stamp out smoking is crucial because it exacts a significant toll on our society, as the Senior Minister of State noted earlier.

Over the last 10 years, Singapore has seen no definitive patterns of sustained decline in smoking prevalence, which has hovered between 12% and 14%.

According to a study published in Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, smoking prevalence in Singapore approximates 15% among adults and 6% among youths aged 13-15 years old. Notably, research by the Singapore Cancer Society found that 80% of adult smokers in Singapore picked up the habit before reaching 21. Indeed, studies in other parts of the world have shown that people who smoke during adolescence are 16 times more likely to become adult smokers. Given the evidence that early experimentation with smoking is a predictor for smoking dependency in adulthood, we must therefore do our utmost to discourage our young from acquiring this harmful habit.

I would like to therefore take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to an issue of growing concern worldwide – this is the circumvention of restrictions on tobacco advertising by multinational tobacco companies through the use of insidious social media campaigns. These campaigns capitalise on the appeal of social media influencers through photographs featuring these young role models smoking in cool venues while wearing trendy clothing, accompanied by catchy hashtags. Deceptively, however, no explicit mention is made of the tobacco companies behind these campaigns. Such visually arresting content seeks to depict smoking as a normal practice among young people, and indeed showcases smoking as a glamourous and desirable lifestyle choice.

In the United States, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has led several organisations including the American Academy of Paediatrics and the American Lung Association to mount a petition requesting action by the United States Federal Trade Commission. This petition asserts that tobacco companies are actively promoting smoking via hundreds of thousands of images, hashtags and videos shared by young people on social media platforms such Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. The reach of such content is sizeable. Research by the petitioners found that a mere 123 hashtags linked to these tobacco companies’ social media campaigns were viewed 8.8 billion times in the US and 25 billion times worldwide just on Twitter alone.

These multinational tobacco companies have initiated such media campaigns in numerous countries throughout Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Central, North and South America, roping in high profile youth influencers in each country. Closer to home, tobacco companies have funded such campaigns in neighbouring countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. Influencers are given strict instructions on which cigarettes to feature, how to take natural photographs which do not resemble advertisements, when they should post these images for optimal audience engagement, as well as the hashtags that they must use. In one particular country, the influencers were even told to conceal the health warnings on the cigarette packs before posting the images. Such shady tactics are calculated to mislead young people into thinking that these images are organic social media content that simply reflect youth culture.

While there is fortunately no evidence to show that social media influencers in Singapore have been targeted by tobacco companies in this way, the porous and borderless nature of the internet means that young Singaporeans can nevertheless be exposed to such images. Many social media influencers also have a global fan base so even campaigns originating from well beyond our shores can appeal to our youths if influencers with a strong following in Singapore are mobilised. After all, Singaporeans are avid social media users, with young Singaporeans being the most active.

Of particular pertinence to Singapore is the fact that most of these social media campaigns promoting smoking almost exclusively use English even when it is not the lingua franca of the country from which these campaigns originate. The highly visual nature of social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat also means that language is essentially no barrier to the communicative impact of such images.

This is yet another issue, in addition to online falsehoods, that shows how the extensive reach of big technology companies with a global presence has significant ramifications on society. Because of the lack of transparency surrounding the algorithms that determine what content social media platforms serve us, we cannot discern why we may be seeing more of particular forms of content. Neither can we exert more active control over our social media feeds should we so choose. Young people who like, share or comment on images portraying negative behaviours as hip and trendy, with particular hashtags, may be unwittingly served more of such images on their social media feeds.

Such transnational social media campaigns that actively promote smoking will undo the value and hard work of anti-tobacco legislation and enforcement that have been in place worldwide for decades.

Hence, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there will be greater effort made to track the use of social media by tobacco and e-cigarette companies for promoting their wares in Singapore through such underhanded methods.

I would also like to ask whether the Ministry will work with the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore to establish more concrete guidelines around the responsibilities of social media influencers with regard to full disclosure in cases of sponsored content by tobacco and e-cigarette companies.

I would further like to suggest that the Ministry works with its counterparts in ASEAN and countries further afield, as well as the World Health Organisation, to take action against this egregious and damaging practice of using social media campaigns to circumvent restrictions against tobacco advertisements.

In addition, I would also like to suggest that the Minister engages with big technology companies to remind them of the contributory and supportive role they should play in helping to minimise young people’s exposure to images portraying smoking in a positive light. These companies possess the ability to alter their algorithms to stem the spread of such images, in the same way that they have algorithms to weed out obscene and extremist content. Mr Speaker, in Chinese please:

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Although this Bill will help promote plain tobacco packaging, for the young, curbing smoking at the sales stage may already be too late. The young can be easily influenced by the positive image of smoking created by social media marketing. Such marketing is sponsored by multinational tobacco companies. Although there are no such marketing campaigns in Singapore thus far, the borderless nature of the Internet means that our young can come into contact with these positive images of smoking through social media, such as Instagram and Snapchat.

Hence, social media has become a new area where our health authorities must battle the marketing strategy of depicting smoking as a desirable lifestyle choice. MOH must work with other countries and the WHO to take action to fight this unhealthy trend.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I hereby register my concerns about the deleterious trends surrounding novel and surreptitious ways of promoting smoking and vaping. I strongly support this Bill and hope that the Ministry will monitor such covert marketing to Singapore’s youths, with a view to an even stronger Bill in future.

3.50 pm

Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, it is hoped that standardised packaging for cigarettes will, firstly, make it less attractive to smokers, especially the younger generation and those who want to try smoking and have just started smoking; second, reduce the impact of advertisements and promotions; third, further strengthen messages about the negative impact and dangers of smoking; fourth, create clearer graphics on the risks and warnings about smoking on its packaging.

These measures will hopefully further reduce the number of smokers and also stop those who intend to start smoking. It is also in line with the WHO Convention to further reduce the number of smokers globally.

But will these measures have an impact, especially on our Malay community? They have the highest number of smokers at the national level.

A study by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) in 2010 showed that 4.5% of Singaporeans are addicted to smoking and 20% of them are Malays, which represents a higher proportion compared to our population figures as a minority group. What can we do to manage this situation? Programmes like the I QUIT Programme/Challenge to Quit Smoking during the Fasting Month of Ramadan, advertisements and others, as well as various measures by the Government, seem to have lost their effect. Health statistics show that the number of our community members who are unhealthy, in terms of having chronic diseases and a smoking habit as one of the risks, are worrying. Our Malay male smokers, for instance, start smoking at a young age, during their teens and even while in school. This is unhealthy! Parents who smoke introduce the risk of second hand smoke on their children and family members, and this will further increase their risk.

We must unite our efforts to address this problem together. It is hoped that these messages, and the age limit to buy cigarettes, as well as negative psychological messages, will have an impact on this complex smoking problem.

(In English): Standardised packaging: is it going to work for Singapore? We have had all kinds of efforts put in and I have to commend MOH for all the initiatives that have been undertaken over the years. We have seen the literature from several countries and have seen how this implementation has been rather lukewarm and, in fact, controversial in some countries. So, are we still going ahead with it?

Well, in considering this, it brings us to the root cause of, firstly, the association between cigarette smoking and cigarette pack designs, the pack attributes and also people’s choices. Secondly, it is about perceptions about the Standardised Packaging versus the usual packaging. And, thirdly, the potential impact of the graphic warnings and advisories. And there have been studies that have been quoted, both pro and also against this.

As regulators, we must also ask themselves in planning programmes and enforcements which include the link between package and design with quality, with taste, with cost, with social appeal, with attempt to start and try smoking and also the ease of quitting and, perhaps, the perceived harm amongst the different age groups and the different generations.

The issue and the problem lies in the fact that these factors affect people differently and unpredictably as well. It is coloured by their upbringing, by their life experiences, by their perceptions, by their inculcation of educational messages into their neural networks and also their psychological resilience and make-up. Those are, indeed, complex elements for us to really control.

After knowing all these factors, are we going ahead with this Bill?

My answer would be yes. Why? Because we owe it to those who will be impacted, to those who will benefit, to those who will quit, to those who will not start and to those who are affected by other people smoking around them.

Therefore, it may be short sighted to actually just view this Bill as a single entity. It is something that should be seen in the bigger context of Singapore, as a clean and green garden city, in the context of making the presence of smoking restriction framework in our public places common with the fact that we have age restriction limits to purchasing of cigarette and tobacco products and, of course, our ongoing educational efforts and I QUIT programmes that have been implemented over years and generations and all these are also important because we want to make sure that our younger generations stay healthy for years to come. In fact, one of the programmes that is targeting the younger generations will be the smoke-free tobacco generation that is for those who are born in the Year 2000 and beyond to actually stop smoking and I think we have been quite active with this programme in our schools and with teenagers as well.

So, therefore, when we consider all these put together, hopefully, it will be more positive than negative. So, Sir, I support the Bill.

3.56 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill that will contribute to further reducing the smoking rate and promote healthier living in Singapore.

Studies from other countries that have implemented standardised packaging, such as those in Australia and the UK, consistently highlight the deterrent effect this measure can have upon smoking. The implementation of standardised packaging is a huge and positive leap in the right direction. That being said, I would like to seek some clarifications on certain aspects of the Bill.

First, I would like to seek clarification on the increase in the maximum fines that may be imposed for offences relating to licenses required for dealing with tobacco products. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 18(5) of the Act to increase the fines for an offence under that provision.

Could the Minister for Health clarify the rationale behind the increase in maximum fines for such offences? Is there evidence, for instance from studies conducted in other countries, that such an increase in maximum fines would be effective in deterring offenders, especially in the case of repeat offenders?

Further, why have these fines been increased by 100%, both in the case of offenders and repeat offenders? Are there reasons as to why they have been increased by this specific amount? Has there also been an increase in recent times for such offences?

Second, under the new section 17, the Bill requires that all tobacco products that are imported, distributed and sold in Singapore adhere to the requirements prescribed under the Principal Act. Can the Minister clarify exactly how these requirements would be enforced? Would the original powers of police and authorised officials be adequate, particularly given the introduction of a considerable measure such as standardised packaging?

Australia, the first country to introduce standardised packaging, set up a "Tobacco Plain Packaging Enforcement Committee" comprising of representatives from the Ministry of Health and the National Measurement Institute. This committee monitors potential contraventions and decides what type of punitive actions should be taken based on the contraventions. Such a committee could be particularly useful in ensuring that the standardised packaging proposal is implemented smoothly in Singapore. Does the Ministry have any plans to set up a similar enforcement committee to ensure that there is a separate institutionalised body responsible for all matters concerning enforcement of standardised packaging?

Finally, while I am aware of the potential positive effects standardised packaging can have on reducing the smoking rates, I am concerned about the measure’s potential effectiveness, specifically in reducing the ability of tobacco packaging to mislead consumers on the harms of smoking.

According to MOH's Press Release on 31 October last year, standardised packaging is intended to fulfill five main objectives. These include reducing the packaging's potential to mislead consumers on the harmful effects of smoking, highlighting graphic health warnings, and raising awareness about the risks of smoking.

However, according to the primary study used in the Australian government’s review of its standardised packaging programme, researchers found that the measure did not adequately address the goal of reducing the ability of tobacco to mislead smokers on the harmful effects of smoking. Further, the study found that there was no change in smokers' misperceptions that certain types of tobacco products were better for their health.

Could the Minister clarify exactly how and why standardised packaging would reduce the potential of tobacco packaging to mislead consumers on the harmful effects of smoking then?

In addition, the study also discussed the inclusion of colour names in brand variant names after the implementation of standardised plain packaging in Australia. As standardised packaging in Australia did not limit the use of colour names in brand variant names, companies began including colour names to evoke the sensations or feelings previously connoted by the colour on the package. For instance, a product, which was known as "Dunhill Distinct" in the past, had its brand variant name changed to "Dunhill Distinct Blue" after the introduction of standardised packaging. Such efforts had the effect of reinforcing the differences between tobacco products which further contributes to the misconception that certain product variants were less harmful than others.

Given the potential ramifications, which can result from certain brand variant names, could the Ministry consider vetting and setting restrictions on certain brand variant names? For instance, based on the example I have used, would it be possible to prohibit the use of colour names in brand variant names?

Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill. This Bill signals the Government’s firm willingness to work towards creating a tobacco-free Singapore and I wholeheartedly support these efforts.

4.00 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me wish all the Members in the House a Happy Lunar New Year and "人日快乐".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of the Ministry's proposal to implement standardised packaging and enlarged graphic health warnings for tobacco products. As various research projects have found, such packaging will help to reduce the appeal of tobacco products and seems effective in reducing smoking in countries when standardised packaging was introduced.

I share the Ministry's concern that after so many years of public education, the number of smokers in Singapore has not actually decreased as much as we hope for. We have to invest more effort into solving this addiction problem, especially among the younger smokers.

Some of my residents have asked me if the Government would consider banning the import of tobacco products all together. We had discussed this option in this House before and concluded that a hard ban would not be advisable as this would just drive the buying and selling underground, and encourage smuggling, particularly from across the Causeway.

It is better, for now, to allow tobacco products to remain on the shelves of our shops and supermarkets while removing the customised designs of each brand and product. Standardised packaging will remove the illusions of their (purported) attributes and enable shoppers to see them as they are – tobacco – nothing more and nothing less.

I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry has details of smoker profiles in each age group. Since the producers were required to include graphic warnings on the cigarette packs sold, have the different health warnings been effective?

Will the Ministry consider requiring the producers to restrict the percentage of nicotine content and other harmful contents? Will the Ministry consider requiring all media to carry reminders of the harmful effect of tobacco in all screenings of videos, movies or drama productions where the scenes of smoking cannot be edited and cut?

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.

4.03 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I thank the various Members for speaking up in support of the Bill. I will now address the Members' queries on the Bill.

At its heart, this Bill recognises that more needs to be done to achieve the sustained declines in smoking prevalence, and I reiterate the statistic that I mentioned at the start of this session, which is that one in five men smoke daily, higher than in many developed countries. That is a statistic we do not want to see and want to arrest and reverse. Tobacco use, including smoking, remains, therefore, a significant public health problem in Singapore.

Our long-standing public health objective is to promote and move towards a tobacco-free society, a point that several Members have reiterated earlier as well. This Bill is another in the suite of tools we have introduced, and which we will continue to introduce as necessary, to control tobacco consumption.

Prof Fatimah Lateef has made the point that it would be short-sighted to view this Bill as a single entity. I agree entirely. The SP Proposal must therefore be seen in the context of Singapore’s various multi-pronged approach to tobacco control. Our approach includes a comprehensive mix of strategies, and that includes public education, the provision of smoking cessation services, taxation, and legislation, amongst other things, to control tobacco labelling, advertising, and promotion, smoking in public places and sales of cigarettes to minors, all of which work in tandem to control tobacco consumption.

Mr Louis Ng has asked for clarification on how standardised packaging can be expected to reduce the potential of tobacco packaging to mislead consumers on the harmful effects of smoking. In particular, he suggests that certain studies found that Australia’s standardised packaging measures did not adequately address the goal of reducing the ability of tobacco packaging to mislead smokers on the harmful effects of smoking. I would like to address those points in some detail.

There is a broad and extensive range of international and local research and evidence which shows that standardised packaging is likely to be effective in meeting public health objectives – the five points which I have outlined earlier. MOH has reviewed over 200 primary studies, reviews and materials relating to standardised packaging and enlarged graphic health warnings originating from a wide range of sources and countries, and also across multiple disciplines, such as public health, marketing, psychology, economics and econometrics. MOH has also taken into consideration the feedback from our several public consultations in formulating our final assessment of the evidence pertaining to the SP Proposal.

Studies internationally have found that through the elimination of logo and design elements, plain packs were perceived as less attractive, less attention-grabbing, and less likely to be purchased by youths, compared with branded and novel packs. Indeed, the US Surgeon-General’s Report in 2012 concluded that "there is strong, consistent evidence that advertising and promotion influence the factors that lead directly to tobacco use by adolescents, including the initiation of cigarette smoking as well as its continuation".

Therefore, addressing the labelling and packaging of tobacco products is an important step towards reducing smoking uptake and prevalence. This is also aligned to what the WHO itself recommends under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The WHO concluded in 2016 that, "there is a large body of empirical evidence… for introduction of standardised packaging", and that this evidence "suggests that standardised packaging makes health warnings, restrictions on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, as well as restrictions on misleading tobacco packaging more effective".

In April 2015, after the introduction of the measures in Australia, the Australian government published its Post-Implementation Review data in a series of peer-reviewed journal papers. The studies concluded that the objectives of Australia's plain packaging measure had been met and again, I quote, "plain packaging is severely restricting the ability of the pack to communicate and create appeal with young people and adults", and "plain packaging [is] fulfilling its core aims of reducing appeal, particularly among young adults, and increasing warning salience."

Indeed, studies in Australia after the introduction of plain packaging also found that there were behavioural outcomes associated with greater quit intention, and also negative feelings towards tobacco products. For instance, in one study, the number of quit attempts rose after implementation of the measure. The number of calls to Quitline also rose by 78%, peaking at four weeks post-implementation, and sustained right through 43 weeks post-implementation. There was also evidence that smokers avoided displaying the standardised packs and there was greater avoidance behaviour regarding the graphic health warnings.

While it is of course very challenging to seek to isolate the impact of any one single tobacco-control policy, it is noteworthy that in the Australian experience, they have had access to a large, granular dataset collected over an extended period of time. Analysis of this dataset indicates that over a period of 34 months, after accounting for other tobacco control measures, Australia's standardised packaging measure contributed to a 0.55 percentage point decline in smoking prevalence that was above and beyond existing trends. 0.55% may seem small. Nonetheless, it is still impactful. In Australia, it meant 108,000 fewer smokers.

Together with our own experts, we reviewed this study in some detail. We have access to the dataset itself, so we did not just review their conclusions. We looked at their datasets in some detail, and we have found that its methodology and conclusions were thorough, reliable and credible. To put the results that they have achieved in context, if you were to apply that in Singapore, at the same rate that they have achieved in Australia, it would mean a reduction of 15,000 fewer smokers here. All of these are very useful indicators which tell us that the SP Proposal that we have put up is the correct measure to take.

Overall, the evidence supports the conclusion that the SP Proposal is likely, alongside other tobacco-control measures, to promote public health through the reduction of the prevalence of smoking in Singapore. Whilst there can be no precise prediction on future behavioural trends, or how long the impact might take to be felt, or whether other measures might become necessary to achieve even better tobacco control, the current evidence points substantially in favour of there being significant public health benefit in Singapore with the introduction of the SP Proposal.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the effectiveness of health warnings. The aim of graphic health warnings on tobacco products is precisely to communicate health risk and also to motivate tobacco users and, possibly, potential users, to either quit or reduce, or not even start consumption. This question has previously been addressed by MOH in this House. Members will know that there is a strong body of international evidence demonstrating the impact of graphic health warnings on knowledge of health effects, thoughts about quitting, use of Quitlines, and ultimately on quitting attempts.

Studies from Australia, Canada, the US and the UK have shown impact on behaviours, such as noticing cigarette warnings and forgoing cigarettes, predict subsequent quitting attempts among individual smokers. For example, a systematic review of 32 studies from 20 countries, including some high-income countries, with more than 800,000 participants found that graphic health warnings are associated with increased Quitline calls, reduced smoking consumption, increased quit attempts, increased short-term smoking cessation and reduced smoking prevalence.

Locally, in Singapore, a 2005 study by HPB evaluating the impact of the introduction of graphic health warnings showed that 50% of participants were more concerned and worried about their health after seeing the graphic health warnings. This also led to behaviour changes where one in four smokers were motivated to quit smoking and made efforts to abstain from smoking. Non-smokers were also affected and more than half spoke up to advise their friends and loved ones to quit smoking. This outcome and finding is also consistent with international evidence on the impact of graphic health warnings.

The evidence also suggests that the use of large and noticeable graphic health warnings can reduce smoking initiation. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that countries should consider increasing the size of graphic health warnings to cover more than 50% of tobacco packaging and replacing the images on such warnings every two to three years to increase their effectiveness. So you rotate and change the images because, otherwise, one becomes desensitised and dulled to the images. This recommendation is also in part why we have proposed that the graphic health warnings be increased to 75% of the cigarette packaging.

I would add on this point, finally, that in the dispute on plain packaging against Australia at the World Trade Organization (WTO), that I mentioned earlier, the panel concluded, and I quote, that "there is some econometric evidence suggesting that standardised packaging, together with the enlarged graphic health warnings implemented at the same time contributed to the reduction in overall smoking prevalence as well as in cigar smoking prevalence, observed after their entry into force." So, it is a point that we have also leaned on and taken notice of in arriving at our measures.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked whether the SP Proposal would lead to "down-trading" and an increase in counterfeit tobacco products. Down-trading describes a phenomenon in which there is a shift from more expensive tobacco products or brands to lower priced alternatives in the market. The tobacco industry has contended that standardised packaging will result in this phenomenon, which will in turn lead to an increase in overall tobacco demand or consumption because consumers buy more products when prices are lower.

We have looked at this with advice from our experts. This shift towards lower priced tobacco products in the Australian market was observed even before the introduction of standardised packaging, and is also observed in all other high-income countries, not just in Australia, as smoking prevalence decreases.

Much of this is attributable to pricing strategies of the tobacco industry itself, which has been known to increase the price differential between low and higher priced brands when passing on tax increases to the customer.

Our own assessment is that any acceleration in trends towards down-trading in Australia is likely to be largely attributable to the actions of the tobacco industry in differentially passing on the increases in taxes in the years following the implementation of standardised packaging. Correspondingly, the contribution of standardised packaging to down-trading is likely to only be a modest one, if at all. Any impact that down-trading may have on increasing overall demand may also be addressed by policy measures to increase the absolute price and hence reduce affordability of low-price brands, for example, by increasing tobacco taxes, if necessary.

Regarding counterfeit tobacco products, our assessment is that the introduction of standardised packaging is unlikely to materially contribute towards an increase in illicit trade in tobacco products in Singapore. We arrived at this view after having carefully considered the arguments and evidence submitted by the tobacco industry players themselves on illicit trade to the public consultation, as well as of course, the experience in Australia.

Much of the evidence submitted was in relation to Australia's experience, largely because they have had several years since they introduced the measures, have gathered a large amount of data, and also looked at the experience, in some way, with the benefit of hindsight. The same evidence was submitted to the WTO Panel, which reviewed it in detail. The WTO Panel concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that the introduction of standardised packaging in Australia had led to an increased trade or consumption of illicit tobacco so as to undermine standardised packaging's contribution to the overall objective of improving public health.

The local context is also important. The prevailing form of illicit tobacco in Singapore is that of contraband, which is genuine but duty-unpaid cigarettes, as opposed to counterfeit cigarettes. Due to the relatively small Singapore market for cigarettes, counterfeit cigarette manufacturers are not incentivised to counterfeit cigarettes for sale in Singapore.

In Singapore, illicit tobacco products are sold on the black market rather than at licensed tobacco retailers. The aim of counterfeiting is to "pass off" counterfeit products as the genuine article. There has been no evidence submitted in the consultations to MOH to show that buyers on the black market will choose counterfeit products in standardised packaging over contraband, genuine products, and that really is assessment that one has to make.

Overall, therefore there is no compelling reason to believe that counterfeit products and illicit trade will increase with the introduction of standardised packaging. We will, however, work with Customs and other relevant agencies to continue to monitor the situation regarding illicit trade and step up enforcement and educational efforts as necessary.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has asked whether MOH will be reaching out to retailers. I think her concern, quite rightly, was with the retailers who may have an existing stock of the older non-standardised packaging tobacco products and she asked if we could reach out to them, to help them understand the new standardised packaging requirements, hear their feedback, and also to understand any concerns they might have on the implementation deadlines and operationalising of the implementation. She also asked about the length of the transition period. These are very all pertinent issues to mitigate any harsh effects there might be, against the retailers, particularly those who operate smaller set ups.

As mentioned earlier, should this Bill be passed, MOH will brief stakeholders within the industry on the proposed specifications for the standardised layouts for tobacco product packaging so the rules and requirements will be made clear. In addition, we will also discuss other operational implementation issues that they might have. Tobacco retailers will be invited to these briefings as well.

As for the transition period that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah raised, other countries that have introduced standardised packaging typically give the industry three months to a year from the publication of the requirements for standardised packaging to the start of the sell-through period that I mentioned earlier.

In Singapore, for past changes to tobacco packaging, for example, the Graphic Health Warnings change, we have provided advance notice of somewhere between nine to 12 months lead time. We will provide something similar for the SP Proposal.

On enforcement, Mr Louis Ng asked about this question and suggested that MOH consider setting up a separate institutionalised body to enforce our standardised packaging measure – similar to Australia's "Tobacco Plain Packaging Enforcement Committee".

The enforcement of Singapore's tobacco control law already falls under a specialised regulatory agency – namely, the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore. The HSA enforces the labelling requirements for tobacco products, including the existing Graphic Health Warnings, the health information, as well as the sale restriction messages on tobacco packaging. This is usually done at the importer, manufacturer and also the distributor level. Thus far, we have found the existing regulatory regime to be adequate and sufficient but we will no doubt keep in mind Mr Louis Ng's suggestion as we consider the details of implementation, if this Bill is passed.

Prof Lim Sun Sun raised some very valid points on what happens with the proliferation of social media. These are all issues that we have to grapple with, not just in tobacco control but overall in terms of the messaging, and the type of information that one gleans and gathers on the social media, which is very much and very quickly proliferating. We have two responses. The first is, under our current Tobacco Control of Advertisements and Sales Act, tobacco-related advertisements in all forms of media are already banned and that can include advertisements which emanate from foreign countries overseas but which are viewed or shown in Singapore. The law is clear on this – we prohibit it but obviously with so many different influencers and the examples that Prof Lim herself cited, where one can artistically and somewhat perhaps, very carefully, design the way in which the images are portrayed, this makes detection and therefore enforcement a lot more difficult. Nonetheless, we will take on board the suggestion to work more closely with social media companies and the tech giants to ensure that this same message is passed through, which leads to my next point.

HPB already runs a very extensive public education campaign. That is also done online and that is also done using social media. So apart from enforcing it through the rules which we have in place, we also want to amplify our public education outreach on the same platforms with the same reach and hopefully to the same target audience as what these tobacco companies are trying to do. We will continue to do so and see how we can take on board Prof Lim Sun Sun's suggestions as to how we can work more closely with these companies particularly on the point about algorithms, which is entirely valid.

Mr Louis Ng has asked us to clarify the rationale behind the increase in maximum fines for offences under section 18 of the Act. Section 18 is the provision that requires any person dealing with tobacco products and that includes the importing, distributing, selling and offering for sale in Singapore to hold a valid license issued by the HSA. As mentioned earlier, the aim is to align the maximum penalties in section 18 with the maximum fines for similarly serious comparable offences pertaining to the importation, distribution, retail and possession of prohibited tobacco products and imitation tobacco products under sections 15 and 16 of the Act, respectively. With the alignment of penalties, we make it clear that offences related to unlicenced dealing of tobacco products are considered as serious offences to the same degree as offences relating to prohibited tobacco products.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if we have the profile of smokers in each age group. Based on our population health surveys, we do have information on the general demographic profile of smokers by age group and that is in part why we are concerned with the initiation of smokers, especially at a young age. The Health Promotion Board uses such information to customise and also target the education programmes and smoking cessation interventions for specific demographic groups, in settings such as schools, workplaces, healthcare and also in the community.

For instance, HPB has developed the Ramadan I Quit smoking cessation programme, to meet the specific needs of the community. Roadshows are held in various festive bazaars annually to provide cessation support to smokers. So, it is not just the campaign on the awareness, but also providing these smokers who are keen to stop with our support for the cessation programme. In 2018, over 4,000 participants from all ethnic groups pledged to quit smoking. HPB has worked closely with MOE as well as with Institutes of Higher Learning to increase education and awareness to prevent youths from taking up tobacco products, or for those who have started, to stop. HPB is further leveraging social media to better engage youth on the benefits of a smoke-free lifestyle, and to persuade the young to stay smoke-free.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has urged the Government, again, to consider designated smoking points in more places, especially in residential areas. This does not quite concern standardised packaging but nonetheless I understand that my colleagues at MEWR are monitoring the effectiveness of the Orchard No-Smoking Zone before considering whether to replicate the concept elsewhere, perhaps in the estates that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah mentioned. We will ask them to consider Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's suggestion to study the effectiveness of the DSPs in other areas, and the feasibility of piloting a similar No-Smoking Zone concept in residential estates.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked what we are doing to tackle cigarette smuggling. Singapore Customs' enforcement teams already, as you know, conduct operations to interdict supply and distribution of duty-unpaid cigarettes. Customs work closely with other law enforcement agencies such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and Singapore Police Force to interdict cigarette smuggling into Singapore, and also enforce against illegal street peddlers and end-consumers to suppress street-level duty-unpaid cigarette activities. Customs also organises targeted outreach programmes and community road shows and of course, finally, members of the public can report illegal activities to the Singapore Customs through a 24-hour hotline, by email, or on the mobile app, Customs@SG.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also suggested that penalties for unlicensed import of tobacco products under the Tobacco Act can include a jail term under the Tobacco Act itself. Currently, selling or dealing in duty-unpaid tobacco are already serious offences under the Customs Act. Offenders face a fine of up to 40 times the amount of duty evaded, or up to six years' jail or both. The penalties are severe and they are designed to deter those who may be thinking of engaging in such activities.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked two questions related to this. The first is, whether or not, once our standardised packaging measure is in place, one could still import non-compliant cigarette packs into Singapore simply by paying the duty. If you look at the proposed amendments, no importation of any packs not in compliance with the standardised packaging regulations will be allowed. So, whether duty is paid or unpaid, the fact of the matter is that if the packaging for the purposes of importation into Singapore does not comply with the regulations, then that would not be allowed. The only exception to importation into Singapore for non-compliant packages will be for the purposes of re-exporting out of Singapore without coming into the Singapore market.

Mr Tan also asked if we regulate the size of the cigarettes themselves, presumably because, with the standardised packaging measures in place, one could foreseeably see tobacco companies distinguishing themselves by having different cigarette sizes or lengths. Mr Tan might wish to note that under the new section 17(3)(a) which is found in clause 3 of the proposed Bill, we already provide for the ability to regulate not just the packaging, but also the size of the actual tobacco product or cigarette itself.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh has asked if MOH would consider restricting nicotine and other harmful substances in tobacco products. This is again not quite the emphasis of the Bill here but I would like to inform the House that under the Act currently, there are already limits set for tar and nicotine in cigarettes. We note that the US Food and Drug Administration is studying the possibility to lower the nicotine content of cigarettes to non-addictive levels. MOH will monitor these developments closely. There will be public health benefit if cigarettes can be made to be non-addictive but, of course quitting smoking would be much easier.

Mr Gan asked if MOH would consider requiring broadcast media to carry reminders of the harmful effect of tobacco in all screenings of videos, movies or drama productions, where the scenes of smoking cannot be edited and cut.

There are presently already content guidelines for media broadcasters to exercise due diligence in the depiction of smoking on TV, in movies and other media channels. But as Prof Lim did point out, today, the media is more than just traditional TV or videos or movies. There is also social media on the Internet.

With that in mind, we look at the different suite of measures and work out what is best to address and arrest these images. In broad terms, broadcasters must avoid conveying the impression in programmes that smoking is socially acceptable, glamourous or harmless. However, portrayal of smoking in films continues to be a problem worldwide, and cannot at present be completely eradicated. However, we will study the suggestion to display anti-smoking messages or advertisements before any films containing tobacco imagery are shown.

Mr Louis Ng also asked if we could consider restrictions on certain brand variant names. We will give it consideration, but as Mr Ng knows, we prescribe the way in which the name of the brand as well as the variant is presented in terms of style and font and colour on the package. We will look at the names to ensure that they are not misleading, which is already the current requirement.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, tobacco use is still a significant public health problem in Singapore. Smoking rates in recent years have not shown a clear pattern of continuous decline, and more than 2,000 Singaporeans die prematurely from smoking-related diseases each year. I thank the Members who have spoken today in support of this Bill, and I also note the concerns that have been raised.

The decision to introduce the SP Proposal, that is, to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco products and to enlarge our existing graphic health warning size, was not taken lightly. We have given very careful, due and deliberate consideration to the available primary evidence, consulted with experts in different fields, and different types of experts and sought the public’s views multiple times. We acknowledge the impact that the introduction of the SP Proposal will have on tobacco and its related industries, potentially in terms of costs and other ways as highlighted by various Members including Er Dr Lee and we have taken and will continue to take steps to mitigate this impact.

Ultimately, the SP Proposal is expected to serve positive objectives and provide substantial public health benefits, including leading to reduced smoking prevalence in Singapore. These objectives and outcomes warrant its introduction in Singapore as an additional measure in our comprehensive, multi-pronged, multi-faceted tobacco control strategy. I hope I have sufficiently addressed Members’ concerns, and am grateful for the support that has been shown for the SP Proposal received from members from the public and also from this House. With that, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai].

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