FIRE AT NO. 130 ANSON ROAD

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will say whether the Police or the Singapore Fire Service have discovered who or what was responsible for the fire that occurred at No. 130 Anson Road on 20th May, 1983.

The Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, 130 Anson Road is a 3-storey pre-war building. It was acquired by the URA in March 1981. The fire occurred at about 11.00 a.m. on 20th May, 1983. At the time of the fire, 20 persons were living on the premises. There was also a souvenir shop.

The fire was put out within half an hour by the timely arrival of the Fire Service. The rear portion of the first floor and the whole of the second floor were completely gutted by the fire. The souvenir shop suffered only slight damage. One occupant was injured.

The Police have investigated the incident. The cause of the fire could not be established.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. Would the Minister of State agree that fires do not start by themselves? They start either because someone has thrown a lighted cigarette end or something else to start the fire, or there is a burnt wiring hanging loose somewhere. Is the Minister also aware that the fire started about 10 minutes after a resettlement inspector had inspected the first floor, apparently to put up notices?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek clarification as to what is the Member for Anson suggesting or inferring in the second part of his supplementary question?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not insinuating or inferring anything, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I ask whether the Police have made a thorough investigation into all this, and whether they have interviewed every person who visited these premises that morning? Have they not been able to find what was the cause of this fire?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me respond to the supplementary question. The first part of his supplementary question was whether it was not true that, in any case of a fire, it is usually started by someone or something. That is obvious. Just to give him some information. Causes of fires for the year 1982, for example, could be classified into 14 categories: light thrown down, electrical origin, exposure to sun's rays (which caused 786 fires), overheating of food, naked lights, sparks, incendiary, overheating of machinery, spontaneous ignition, explosion, children playing with matches, lightning and others. Some causes cannot be discovered even after a thorough investigation. In 1982 there were 97 instances of fire, the causes of which even after a thorough investigation could not be detected. But this 97 was out of a total of 6,000 fires. So the overwhelming majority of fires in Singapore are thoroughly investigated and the causes established, except for a handful of unknown causes.

Turning to the second part of his question. First, obviously there was an innuendo by his brief reference to the fact that there was a URA resettlement officer at the scene 10 minutes before the fire. It was only after I had asked for a clarification that he generalized and asked whether there was a thorough investigation.

Let me say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that all cases of fire are taken seriously by the Singapore Fire Service and the Police, and all cases are thoroughly investigated. This was so in this particular case also. On the day of the fire, the Singapore Fire Service thoroughly investigated and had a field report. They saw a large number of boxes on the second floor. It was suspected that those boxes might have contained a flammable substance. Thereafter, the Police took over. The substance and the boxes were sent to the Department of Scientific Services for a thorough analysis. The Department of Scientific Services reported that their chemical analysis showed no indications of flammable substances such as kerosene, petrol or whatever. All the persons concerned who had to be interviewed were interviewed. So that should put an end to any innuendoes or inferences by the Member for Anson.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, is the House to understand that the Police and the Singapore Fire Brigade are baffled by this fire? They cannot even suggest a possible cause for the fire. And did they take a statement from this officer?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears that the Member for Anson arrived here with an answer in his mind, which does not tally with the answer that I have given. I said there was a thorough investigation. Everyone who was concerned with events before or after the fire was questioned, statements taken including this alleged person, the URA officer.