Fire Safety in Our Homes

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Fire Safety In our Homes

8.21 pm

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, today I wish to speak on the topic of fire safety in our homes. When I read about the Wang Fuk Court tragedy in Hong Kong, Grenfell Tower in London, or even the Le Constellation bar fire in Switzerland just a couple of weeks ago, I think: these are world-class cities, cities with resources, cities with regulations, and yet, fire found a way.

To me, a fire feels different from other disasters. Earthquakes feel distant. Typhoons feel abstract. But a smoke-filled corridor feels immediate. It feels like it could actually happen to me. I would venture that many other Singaporeans feel the same.

Fire fatalities rose from three in 2023 to five in 2024. And by August 2025, we had already recorded at least eight fire deaths. While this may be a statistical blip, given the small numbers, it is a sobering reminder that fire remains an ever-present danger in our lives.

To be clear, I believe that Singapore has strong fire safety standards. Our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are designed as fire compartments to delay the spread of fire until help arrives. Our Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) is well-trained and effective, and our fire codes and building codes are well thought out and comprehensive.

But our good standards make continued vigilance all the more important. I am glad to hear that the Government has started a review of existing fire safety regulations governing building construction and maintenance work. But we must not limit ourselves to just the lessons from Wang Fuk Court, tragic as it was. We must also be cognisant of other hidden dangers, whether they are established practices that have become collective blind spots or new emerging risks that require novel approaches.

So, today, I want to address three areas where I think we can close important gaps. First is barriers to egress; second, battery fires we invite into our homes and third, the widening gap in fire safety standards across different generations of flats and estates. So, let me take each in turn.

Mr Speaker, there is an anomaly in our Fire Code that I think is worth examining. Clause 2.3.9(a) of the SCDF Fire Code stipulates that exit doors must be openable "without the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge" from the inside. This is very sound policy. In a panic, people fumble and seconds matter. But this clause specifically exempts residential units. So, the standard we apply to shopping centres and offices is deemed optional for our own homes. This is, of course, a deliberate policy choice. But the question is whether we should revisit it.

For decades, our HDB flats came standard with a wrought iron gate secured by a double cylinder lock. So, that is sometimes known as a "key-to-key" lock, that is a lock that requires a key to open from either side. In 2019, HDB transitioned new Build-To-Order (BTO) projects to mild-steel gates with a single cylinder lock with an interior thumb turn that allows for easier egress in an emergency. So, residents in these their flats do not need to fumble for a key to get out. These gates are designed such that it is not easy for a prospective intruder to reach around the bars and operate the thumb turn from the outside.

Of course, I think this is a very positive development, but it also means that millions of our flats still have legacy double cylinder locks. For decades, concerns about intruders overrode the need for fire safety. I understand the logic. But this sometimes comes at a heavy cost.

In August last year, a fire broke out in Jalan Bukit Merah. A couple in their 30s were seen at the kitchen window shouting for help. Their neighbours crawled through smoke to reach them but were stopped by a locked entrance gate. Unfortunately, this couple were found unconscious in the kitchen and later died in hospital. We will never know if the locked gate might have been the decisive factor in this case.

There is an additional compounding factor. We often install big, chunky padlocks on our HDB gates. This is featured on many entrances. So, now, you have two locks, two keys and two points of failure. In a smoke-filled flat, fumbling for one key is difficult enough.

There are also window grilles. Many households install these keyed grilles to prevent falls from height. But over time, keys get lost, or the grilles are not even designed to be opened, to begin with, which means when firefighters arrive with a ladder, another potential exit is sealed shut.

So, what is slightly confounding to me is that we are hyper-cognisant of the threats to egress that are faced by new technologies. We now require digital locks that are installed on fire-rated main doors to be certified, recognising that they pose a potential egress risk. Yet, for established practices like keyed gates, window grilles and other risks, we have normalised a clear safety deviance.

So, I would also like to touch briefly on the Home Improvement Programme (HIP). Right now, as part of the HIP, residents have the option to replace their old gates with a mild steel gate with an interior thumb-turn, so much like those that are installed on new BTOs. Critically, this is a paid, optional improvement, and is not part of the "essential improvements" package. But more worryingly, I believe that HDB continues to offer and subsidise the option of installing an old-fashioned wrought-iron gate with a double cylinder lock as an alternative option. That is, we offer residents the option to replace an old gate that is a fire risk with a new gate that is also a fire risk!

We are subsidising the installation of new fire hazards in 2026. This is not legacy infrastructure we are dealing with and managing, but a new risk that we are actively creating. It would seem, to me, that there is an easy path to addressing this risk. Here are my suggestions.

One, we should make the installation of new entrance gates with an interior thumb turn an "essential improvement" under the HIP scheme, fully subsidised and not optional. Wrought iron gates with double cylinder locks should also be eliminated as an option.

Secondly, we should encourage or even mandate that the pre-installation by developers of gates with single cylinder thumb-turn locks. Easy egress should be the default option and residents that prefer double cylinder locks for whatever reasons will have to make the choice to install it themselves.

We should also develop a phased replacement plan for legacy gates with double cylinder locks for estates that are not set to have an HIP exercise in the near future, prioritising older estates.

And finally, we should incorporate the risks of keyed gates, additional padlocks and sealed window grilles into public education campaigns on fire safety.

The second part of my speech will address battery fires. Active mobility device (AMD) fires rose 21.8% in 2024 to 67 cases while personal mobility aid (PMA) fires saw a dramatic 120% spike. When we banned personal mobility devices (PMDs) from footpaths, many users simply migrated to modified mobility scooters instead. The risk was just transferred.

The new year has just begun and AMD fires are already making headlines. Just last Friday, four people were hospitalised in Tampines after a PMA fire. As for the fatal Bukit Merah fire I mentioned earlier, the SCDF findings indicate the blaze likely originated from a non-compliant PMD battery pack in the living room.

Lithium-ion battery fires are different. Thermal runaway, which is a self-sustaining chemical reaction that releases toxic fumes and jet-like flames that breach fire compartments make them extra deadly. The intensity builds in seconds, giving residents little time to react, or fumble for a key. Standard residential fire extinguishers are often useless as well.

We tell residents not to fight these fires themselves. Yet, we expect them to store, charge and manage these devices within their homes.

On my estate walks, I have had several residents share their fear that their neighbours' AMDs being charged right by their front door, a ticking time bomb that might one day trap them within their own homes. Not much can be done to assuage their fears, as today, as it stands, such charging practices are by and large permitted.

The reality is this. Trying to enforce "compliant batteries" is futile when e-commerce makes cheap imports trivial. The upcoming Land Transport and Related Matters Bill that was tabled today double styled on regulation but is unlikely to solve the enforcement gap.

Our current approach relies on compliance when it is fundamentally an infrastructure problem. So, these are my proposals.

Firstly, I think we should push for battery swapping systems to be commonplace, like the model that is made popular by Taiwanese firm Gogoro. Batteries charged in controlled, outdoor environments – this serves both safety and sustainability.

Secondly, I propose that we build public charging hubs for AMDs, perhaps co-located with electric vehicle (EV) chargers in HDB car parks. Equip them with fire suppression, thermal monitoring and make them faster and cheaper than home-charging. Create the incentive for residents to charge AMDs outside of the home.

And thirdly, I would suggest that we implement periodic inspections of AMDs, especially batteries, with enforced replacement timelines as batteries degrade and age.

I think once sufficient infrastructure is built out and residents learn new habits, we might even consider that it would be viable to outlaw the charging of PMDs and PABs within homes, eliminating the risk entirely.

Mr Speaker, I now move onto my final point. Fire safety in Singapore varies by when your block was built. Newer BTOs have fire-rated doors, thumb-turn gates and multiple redundant evacuation routes. Older blocks sometimes have single-staircase designs, enclosed corridors that trap smoke and densely packed flats.

In July of last year, a fire broke out in Toa Payoh Lorong 8. The fire was so intensed that it shattered windows and spread vertically to the floor above. Flames breached the very compartments that our flats are designed around.

When firefighters arrived, they discovered that the dry riser was not in proper working condition. Water could not be charged up to the affected floors. Firefighters had to manually haul hoses up 10 storeys via the staircase. This represents a maintenance challenge. Infrastructure does not just age, it degrades and testing regimes may not catch all failure modes between annual checks.

Let me address the issue of single staircases. Block 229, the block in question, is a 25-storey point block with only a single staircase. Residents trapped above the burning unit had to flee upwards to the 24th floor, because the single staircase near the fire became impassable. Elderly residents had limited options. Some sheltered in place whilst black smoke seeped into their homes and others relied on neighbours for assistance. Seven people were hospitalised, including a firefighter and a child.

This is not an isolated pattern. Several fires in the last years were in blocks with similar single-staircase configurations, where the most direct escape route was compromised.

And here is the equity dimension: we have most of our elderly, least mobile residents living in buildings with older infrastructure and design standards from an earlier era. Those least able to move quickly in an emergency are those most likely to be living in such housing.

Income can also be a factor. Many rental blocks feature densely packed flats and enclosed corridors as well. We can do more to protect these residents and so here is what I propose.

Firstly, we should consider "Fire Escape Viability" – presence of single-point egress or enclosed corridors – as one factor in Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme selection for flat redevelopment.

Secondly, I propose that we further expand the installation of the Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFAD) to all older flats. We prioritise older estates and those with more elderly residents.

Thirdly, we should roll out sprinkler systems in common areas of older blocks systematically, and not just as pilots. Prioritise blocks with enclosed corridors and densely packed units.

Fourthly, we should implement more rigorous inspection regimes for fire-fighting infrastructure – wet risers, dry risers, booster pumps – with published compliance rates and mandatory remediation timelines.

And finally, we should support our Town Councils with clearer enforcement mandates, and more monetary resources and support to maintain the safety standards and keep fire safety infrastructure in good working order.

Mr Speaker, let me bring this together. I have discussed three areas where we can do better: barriers to egress, battery fires and widening gaps across generations of flats. Safety should not depend on when your block was built, whether you can afford an upgrade or which estate you call home. Singapore has built a strong fire safety system. Our HDB flats are well-designed. Our SCDF is world-class and our fire codes are comprehensive. We continue to improve with each new development.

Our task now is to ensure that excellence reaches every home and that we continue the commitment, regardless of age or estate maturity. Let us make fire safety non-negotiable, not optional, not estate-dependent and not income-dependent. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Goh.

8.35 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his Adjournment Motion. I think that today, we have touched quite a bit on the topic of fire safety in our homes earlier in Question Time, as well as now during the Adjournment Motion.

I agree that fire safety in our homes is an important topic, it is one that Singaporeans care deeply about and therefore, I thank the Member for his Adjournment Motion.

I agree with the central theme of his Adjournment Motion, that we must continue to be vigilant with risks, especially as our living environments, technologies, lifestyles and our demographics change.

Allow me to address his concerns in three parts. First, the overall residential fire situation I mentioned earlier and approach towards fire safety. Second, risks relating to AMDs; and third, our community efforts.

I shared earlier during Question Time that the residential fire situation in Singapore is stable over the past five years. The number of fatalities has also remained low, fewer than six on average per year in the past five years. I raise a correction – the Member mentioned that there were eight fatalities in 2025, by August 2025. That is inaccurate. We had six in the whole of 2025.

In terms of Singapore's overall fire fatality rate, it remains one of the lowest internationally. It is something that we watch very carefully and this statistic is provided by a 2025 report by the International Association of Fire and Rescue Services. Over the past five years, I would like to share that the top three causes of residential fires in Singapore have been unattended cooking fires, which account for about a third of cases, fires of electrical origin and those arising from naked flames, such as candles.

This means that the majority of fire incidents stem from human behaviour and practices, and are preventable.

Of course, we know every fire is one too many, and every death is one too many. Fires escalate very quickly, place lives at risk and can have devastating and long-lasting consequences to both the individual, their families and even their neighbours, and we must do our utmost to stay vigilant and minimise the risks – so in those regard, I agree with the Member.

The SCDF adopts a risk-based and pragmatic approach towards fire safety. Fire safety in residential buildings begin with good fire safety design, supported by enforcement, early detection, early warning of fires, effective firefighting response and public preparedness. We need all the different layers to come together, working in concert to be able to effectively reduce the overall risk of fires.

All residential buildings in Singapore are designed and built in accordance with the prevailing Fire Code. I thank the Member for agreeing that the existing Fire Code is robust. The Fire Code stipulates requirements, and in particular, I would like to highlight that a key principle is how every unit is a standalone fire compartment to limit fire spread prior to SCDF's arrival.

On this, our view is that we want to contain and keep the fire within the unit and that is how we mitigate risk at a systemic level. Based on statistics, based on what we have observed, based on the fires that have taken place in recent years, this fire compartmentalisation principle is effective. The Member cited a few examples – the cases in Toa Payoh and Bukit Merah – the fires were indeed intense, but it was relatively contained within either that unit or within that floor or one floor above. It did not spread as extensively and this is, in large regard, because of the compartmentalisation principle.

The Member also mentioned locks, windows and these are important considerations, but I think the principle here that I would like to highlight is we often have to trade off practicality as well. In this regard, security is also something that I think Singaporeans will prioritise and value. At the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), we often say low crime does not mean no crime, and I think it is important for us to also ensure that we afford residents, Singaporeans, their choice, in terms of what kinds of locks for their doors and windows will be. And I think from SCDF's perspective, from MHA's perspective, the fire compartmentalisation principle is good enough for us to proceed.

In addition, we believe residents probably know how to exit their house in the quickest manner because it is an environment that they are very familiar with, and they get out every single day, multiple times a day.

Having said so, the Fire Code is periodically updated. We continuously make sure that it is updated with the latest advances in building design, technologies, and also an evolving understanding of fire risks. Additional provisions have been introduced over the years, such as adequate exit staircases to support swift evacuation, as well as fire engine access roads and rising mains to support SCDF's firefighting operations.

I would like to highlight that the introduction of more recent Fire Code provisions does not mean that older flats are unsafe. I think it is something that is very important to emphasise. We recognise that fire safety regulations must strike a balance, once again, between risk reduction, practicality and cost. Fire Code provisions are most effectively implemented in new developments at the design stage. It will be practically difficult to retrofit older buildings with newer building design requirements, such as widening the width of corridors, and I think the Member can appreciate why. Even if feasible, it will cause significant disruption and cost to both taxpayers and residents, and therefore, we apply the Fire Code to developments at the point of approval.

Existing flats will be subjected to SCDF's strict regulatory oversight and inspections. Where feasible, we upgrade older HDB flats with the latest and practical fire safety measures where we can. And we have done so, such as the installation of dry risers and the replacement of main entrance doors with fire-rated doors. We believe that is a much better way to keep units as well as the overall corridors and floors safe.

This approach has served us well and allows us to strike a balance between providing a robust fire safety regime and practicality.

I would like to reiterate that the introduction of more recent Fire Code safety provisions does not mean older flats are unsafe, and based on what I shared in terms of the most likely causes of fires, human behaviours and human practices tend to be the leading cause, and not infrastructure.

The Member also touched on fire safety in older point blocks. Specifically on older point blocks, which is where I grew up in, so I feel for the point, especially acutely. However, under the Fire Code, most residential buildings currently require two exit staircases to provide means of escape in case of evacuation – and that is valid for today's Fire Code for new projects. The older point blocks require a single exit staircase as stipulated by the Fire Code then, and based on the risk analysis, we believe that is wearable because there are only a few units per floor, so the number of evacuees are much reduced.

Also, from a practical perspective, adding a second staircase in many of these are simply not practical because of the layout.

I think more importantly, over the years, what HDB has also done is to carry out various programmes to improve fire safety in some of these older point blocks to bring them up to date with the Fire Code requirements at the point of upgrade, and we will keep doing that as a principle, where we can practically.

Effective enforcement is also a necessary complement to a robust Fire Code. SCDF works very closely with the Town Councils and MCSTs to keep up with the inspection and enforcement regimes in our housing estates.

The Member mentioned about the fire in Toa Payoh, where it was perceived, it was observed, that the dry risers may not be working as intended. This is something that we are looking into, but the key here is, it is not that the Fire Code is not working, but that the testing and inspection regime may be something that the Member is suggesting we increase the frequency of. Currently, we do have a regular annual inspection regime for these dry risers to make sure they are functional, but again, it is the practicality of striking a balance between how frequent we want to do it and making sure that it is operationally ready. Of course, our objective is to make sure that it is ready every time, all the time, but we do need to strike a balance because of the number of flats around the island, and we do believe the current frequency of the inspection regime is adequate.

I have touched on strong fire safety design and on enforcement. In addition to that, what is useful is early detection and response measures. Since 2018, HFADs have been mandatory in all new homes. For existing homes, we have adopted a risk-calibrated, practical approach, and we have mandated it for homes which are carrying out fire safety related addition and alteration works.

Nonetheless, we strongly encourage all homeowners to install HFADs and homeowners can actually tap on the HIP and the Enhancement for Active Seniors programme to install HFADs at heavily subsidised rates.

HFADs are fully funded for public rental flats.

I would like to inform the House that as of June last year, close to 200,000 HDB flats already have HFADs installed across Singapore through our subsidised schemes.

Through the years, SCDF has continuously enhanced its firefighting capabilities. Technologies, such as aerial appliances and surveillance drones, are a key enabler when deployed to tackle high-rise fires.

However, I would like to highlight that residents can also play a part in firefighting response, prior to SCDF's arrival. To this end, we have improved access to firefighting equipment so that residents can better tackle minor fires.

Singaporeans would notice that we have fire extinguishers and AEDs installed in almost every other HDB block. Hose reels and fire extinguishers are also available in common spaces such as coffee shops, car parks and roof gardens, as required under the Fire Code.

Let me move on to AMDs. While we continue to strengthen our collective response, we also regularly review the overall landscape for emerging risks of which one area of concern is indeed AMDs. AMDs have improved mobility and independence for many residents. However, their lithium-ion batteries pose fire risks and hazards that can result in AMD fires burning hotter and spreading more rapidly.

Even though AMDs accounted for less than 5% of residential fires over the past five years, they accounted for more than 10% of fire-related injuries and 25% of fatalities. This disproportionate impact is concerning.

The risks are even higher with devices that do not comply with the relevant safety standards. Between 2022 and 2025, of all AMD-related residential fires, more than 70% involved devices that were either not certified or tested to the relevant standards or had been illegally modified.

That is why the Government takes a strict enforcement approach towards the import, sale and use of non-compliant AMDs. Since June 2021, local retailers must seek the Land Transport Authority's (LTA's) approval for the import of Personal Mobility Devices and Power Assisted Bicycles, and these devices must be compliant with safety standards. LTA also conducts regular enforcement operations against non-compliant AMDs on public footpaths, as well as retailers selling non-compliant AMDs. In the last five years, LTA detected over 5,000 cases of non-compliant AMDs and took action against offenders including riders, owners and retailers.

To keep non-compliant AMDs away from our homes, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) earlier today, introduced the Land Transport and Related Matters Bill for the First Reading. This Bill makes it an offence to keep unsafe devices, such as non-UL2272 certified e-scooters. MOT is also looking to strengthen regulations on the online sale of AMDs and targets to make the necessary legislative amendments later this year. I believe this graduated scaling-up in terms of our measures against AMDs is adequate at this juncture.

At the same time, enforcement must be complemented by public awareness and education. In this regard, the Active Mobility Fire Safety Taskforce, co-chaired by LTA and SCDF, will continue to outreach to AMD owners under the Be Device-Safe programme, especially on safe charging practices and the dangers of non-compliant AMDs.

While the Government continues to review our policies, programmes and regulations constantly, the best defence against home fires is an informed and prepared public. SCDF continues to work with Government agencies, as well as Town Councils and various community partners, to strengthen public education and outreach on public fire safety and emergency preparedness.

Ultimately, fire safety is a collective responsibility. Only when everyone comes together and remains vigilant, will we be able to further bring down the incidence of fires. We will continue to work hand in hand with Singaporeans, with residents, to make our homes safe.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Mr Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 12.00 pm. Order. Order.

Adjourned accordingly at 8.50 pm.