ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 11.57 am

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Environmental Public Health Act was passed in 1969 when Government realized the importance of having a clean environment and saw an urgent need to protect the environment from further deterioration. A large part of our population was then living in slums, streets were filthy and drains choked with rubbish. There were no effective anti-littering laws. Water pollution control was non-existent and aquatic life was dying in our polluted rivers. That was Singapore in the 60s, Sir, and many have forgotten how it looked, or realized at the time, the damage that was being done to our environment and to the ecology. Many accepted the way it was, the filth and all. Hawkers were all over the place, blocking roads and dirtying the drains and surroundings. We had frequent outbreaks of cholera, typhoid, malaria, to name but a few of the infectious diseases around us.

We have come a long way since then. Today, our air is clean, our rivers are much cleaner and even the water in drains is cleaner. The Act has served us well. However, many changes have taken place since the Act was enacted 18 years ago. Singapore's skyline has changed. A whole new generation of citizens has come to the front. Society has become more educated and affluent and thus people are now less and less tolerant to pollution and expect an even cleaner and healthier environment. Today, most of the basic public health problems have been resolved. We can now concentrate on other areas and set new directions to attain a higher quality of life. To do this, amendments and new provisions to the existing Environmental Public Health Act are desirable and necessary. However, Sir, as the amendments to be made to the existing Act would be extensive, it was decided to rewrite the whole Act. In the process the weaknesses of the present legislation have been tightened and recent advances and trends in public health incorporated.

I shall now highlight the more important features of the Bill under five broad categories.

Illegal dumping of refuse. Sir, more stringent measures to deter dumping of refuse are necessary. It is important to eliminate such inconsiderate acts as illegal dumps can give rise to health hazards, for example, the breeding of mosquitoes and rodents. It also incurs needless public money to clear away such dumps. In 1986, for instance, 167 cases of illegal dumping were detected and a total of 220 tonnes of refuse were removed from these sites by the Ministry of the Environment at a cost of $40,000. Apart from this, there is also a possibility that industrial wastes containing hazardous substances which may pollute our water courses may be dumped illegally. So in the proposed amendment, Sir, vehicles which are used for illegal dumping of refuse may be confiscated. Under clause 20(3) of the Bill where any vehicle is used in disposing or dumping of refuse, waste or any other article in any public place such vehicle may be seized by any police officer or authorized public health officer. Under clause 20(4) the Court on convicting any person of the offence shall, on the written application of the Public Prosecutor, make an order for the forfeiture of the vehicle.

Clause 23, Sir, provides that no person shall construct, establish, maintain or operate any disposal facility without the permission of the Commissioner of Public Health. This is to prevent the use of vacant lands as private dumping grounds.

Tighter control of industrial wastes. Sir, in recent years, many new industrial chemicals which are hazardous have been introduced. There are no provisions in the present Act to control the disposal of industrial and toxic wastes. And as you know, Sir, the improper disposal of such wastes can give rise to serious health hazards.

Clauses 27 and 28 of the Bill empower the Commissioner of Public Health to request the owner or occupier of any workplace to furnish him with any information on the amount, type and nature of any industrial waste produced in such place and to recycle or treat any industrial waste from these premises before it is brought to any public disposal facility for disposal.

Clause 29 prohibits any person from taking any toxic waste to any public disposal facility or treatment without the permission of the Commissioner.

Under Clause 30 of the Bill, Sir, the Commissioner may serve a notice on the occupier of any work premises requiring him to execute certain work or do certain things if, in the Commissioner's opinion, the quality of toxic industrial waste produced in such premises is likely to be excessive or unduly toxic.

Licensing of private waste removal and disposal contractors. Sir, the business of collecting refuse or waste by private waste contractors may need to be controlled in the future to safeguard public health and the interest of customers against malpractice by such contractors. This is done through obtaining the permission of the Commissioner of Public Health, under Clause 31.

Food establishments, markets and hawkers. In the present Act, Sir, the provisions dealing with food establishments, hawkers and markets are contained in three separate parts. These provisions are, however, similar and repetition is therefore unnecessary. To eliminate needless duplications, the three parts are brought together into one single part in the Bill. However, new powers are proposed for the Commissioner of Public Health in dealing with unlicensed food establishments. The Commissioner may close an unlicensed food establishment upon failure of the offender to comply with an order of closure under Clause 32 of the Bill.

Control of noise nuisance at construction sites. This is a new provision and it covers Clauses 47 to 49 of the Bill. Under this provision, the Commissioner of Public Health may specify the type of plant or machinery to be used, the hours of operation and the noise level that is permitted. This is necessary as Singapore becomes urbanized and construction work is carried out closer to the population.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these are, as I have said, some of the more important features of the Environmental Public Health Bill (1987).

In conclusion, I wish to stress that the Bill will make a major contribution towards improved environmental health in Singapore and its enactment is essential for a cleaner and healthier Singapore.

Question proposed.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the GPC on Health and Environment, I would like to comment on the Bill before this House.

As pointed out by the Minister, the purpose of the Bill is to bring about a more effective control of the environment and to incorporate some of the new advances in the field of environmental public health so that all of us will continue to enjoy a safe and clean environment.

The Bill itself, as the Minister has outlined, covers so many areas that it is not possible to summarize many of the points that the GPC have discussed. But here let me just go over one common area of concern, while other Members may want to talk about other aspects of the Bill. This common area of concern pertains to the stiff penalties imposed on illegal hawking, spitting, littering and illegal dumping.

Illegal hawking. According to a recent profile done by the Ministry's officials on illegal hawkers, it was shown that about 82% of them are under 50 years of age. In fact about 50% are between 20 and 40 years. In other words, these are able-bodied men and women who could be working in factories, in the services or in the construction sector where for certain types of jobs there is still a labour shortage. So why do they go into illegal hawking? Is it because they are too choosy, preferring flexible hours and possibly sizeable earnings to manual work, shift work, or say work as beauty saloon assistants? Or is it because people want to strike out on their own and be their own bosses? Or is it because, as some officials believe, that the present fines for illegal hawking are too low and therefore the hawkers dare to flout the law? By this Bill, under clause 42(1), hawkers who infringe on public health requirements and hawkers who operate without a licence would now be liable upon conviction to a fine of $1,000 for a first offence and $4,000 or three months of imprisonment or both for subsequent offences. As such, these fines are very stiff, although they are meant to be maximum penalties and therefore are meant to be deterrents.

Even the present fine of $500 to us is already quite stiff. It is stiff because up to 1981 to 1982 the median gross monthly income of employed persons in Singapore was around $500, according to the Annual Labour Force survey. Beginning in 1982, this median gross monthly income started to rise above $500 to $511 in 1983 to $667 in 1986. Is that the reason then for the Ministry to raise the fine to $1,000 in order to keep up with the rise in income? If it is a matter of inflation, it cannot be because we have had very low rates of inflation in the past few years. In fact, for a couple of years we have had negative inflation. If we take a look at the number of illegal hawkers prosecuted over the past five years (these figures were given to us by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary on March 4 at the last sitting) we note that the number has gone up from 4,915 in 1982 to 6,441 in 1984, and then 8,032 in 1985 and 8,670 in 1986. There was a sharp rise in the number of cases prosecuted for 1985 and 1986. No doubt this could have been due to the fact that those two years were recession years and therefore there could be many more people who were engaged in illegal hawking because of unemployment or because of reduction in incomes. However, we also believe that the rise in the number of prosecutions had to do with the fact that the Ministry's officials actually stepped up enforcement action during those two years as was reported in the press.

The point is the Ministry cannot rely simply on stiffer fines. It has to maintain vigorous enforcement if the problem of illegal hawking is to be contained effectively. Of course it is very difficult to catch the illegal hawkers. They literally run. And public sympathy always goes towards those illegal hawkers who are particularly in financial hardship. But the point I want to make is, again, that the problem cannot be contained based on stiffer fines alone. There could be other measures in addition to these.

When it comes to offences in respect of uncleanliness in public places, clause 21 of the Bill would appear to lump together illegal dumping, spitting and littering, with the penalty for all three types of offences being uniformly set at $1,000 for the first conviction and $2,000 for subsequent convictions. But the seriousness of the three types of offences is actually quite different.

Sir, spitting and littering are anti-social habits which must be curtailed if our efforts to keep Singapore clean are not to be obliterated. But let us recognize that social habits take a long time to correct and a lot of public education is called for. Again, if we look at the number of prosecution for spitting and littering in the past five years, we would see that public education and campaigns do indeed play an important part in containing such anti-social habits.

For spitting, the number of cases prosecuted by the Ministry in 1982 was only two cases, 1983 one. Then in 1984 there was a public campaign against spitting and the number of cases prosecuted rose sharply to 128 that year followed by 139 in 1985, after which it dropped to 81 in 1986. Now, it is, of course, inconceivable that in 1982 to 1983 there were so few people who actually committed this offence. But it is highly probable that in 1986, two years after the campaign, the number of offenders effectively dropped. Thus with anti-social habits such as spitting, both public education and the level of enforcement will help to keep down the number of offences.

The same with littering. In 1984 the number of cases of littering prosecuted saw a steep rise from 11,560 of the previous year to 28,026. The greatest majority of these cases were apprehended in HDB estates. There was a massive campaign against littering in general and against killer litter, in particular. After 1984 the number of cases declined again. Would this new law, would a doubling of the fines produce a doubling of the deterrent effect? Interestingly, the raising of the fine for spitting and littering, although it has already been publicized in the press, has not aroused much public uproar so far. Is it because Singaporeans are now well-off that they can afford to pay such stiff fines for indulging in careless anti-social acts? Or is it because Singaporeans have now grown accustomed to stiff fines and to shake them out of their complacency one needs to shock them? One standing joke among foreigners and locals alike about our clean city, Sir, is that Singapore is a "fine" city. Such comments are not complimentary to us at all.

It is very difficult for me to produce statistics or hard evidence to show that a certain kind of psychological impact has been produced by stiff penalties such as this that can cost to the public. We do not know for sure whether as a result directly attributable to stiff laws, rules and regulations that Singaporeans may harbour a certain sense of resentment against the strong arm of the law that covers so many aspects of their lives.

We are prepared, as members of the GPC, to accept the new fines for spitting and littering, accept them as they are meant as strong deterrents only. Still, I think it will do us good to reflect upon the possible impact on popular sentiments and psychology associated with the raising of these stiff fines.

Let me come to the question of illegal dumping. At first, it does not seem right to treat a person who has unloaded a whole truck-load of refuse in a public place equally with a person who spits or drops a piece of paper on a pavement. The only similarity between the two types of offences is that they are both difficult to catch. But the cost to the Government and therefore cost to the tax-paying public in clearing up one truck-load of refuse is many more times than in cleaning up litter or spittle in the streets and for all you know, as the Minister also mentioned, some loads that may have been dumped on vacant lands and deserted areas may contain materials harmful to human health. Therefore, as compared to spitting and littering, stiffer penalties should be considered for illegal dumping. We see that this is actually provided for in the Bill in clause 20(3) of the Bill which allows for the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles involved in illegal dumping. This is one way. Another way is to fine the driver of the vehicle as well, as in clause 20(10). Also, those people who have hitherto allowed their vacant lands to be used as illegal dumping grounds would now be brought under the law, as per clauses 20 and 23.

Sir, illegal dumping grounds exist. Some are pieces of private land left vacant. Others are lands acquired already by public authorities but are awaiting clearance and development. As such, these illegal dumps shift from one clearance site to another. But private contractors engaged in the removal of refuse know where to go. I was brought by some friends recently to some of these places. It was a Sunday. What I saw did not amuse me. Not only was there a steady stream of trucks carrying refuse into such grounds and coming out empty but there were also suspicious characters hanging around the dump sites watching and, I was told, profiting from the activities. In some cases, these individuals are watchmen of the vacant lands and their activities are not known to the employers or the owners of the land. In other cases, these individuals are shifty hooligans who just pounce on every chance to make illegal money.

I am not suggesting that the above forms are the predominant forms of illegal dumping. I would suspect that in the majority of cases it is the isolated individuals who dump in all sorts of places, even along expressways, when nobody is watching, especially in the dark of night. This brings me to wonder why people choose to run the risk and dump illegally in spite of the risks and in spite of the fact that there are two Government dumping grounds, and in spite of the fact that for small loads of rubbish under one ton the Government does not charge any dumping fees at all.

Sir, it is necessary to make the penalties stiff for illegal dumping. On the other hand, we believe that the Ministry needs to re-examine its own schedule of charges for the dumping grounds or incineration plants. It is not just a matter of convenience that people dump illegally. In fact, in a couple of the places I visited, they were no more than 3-4 km away from the Government dumping ground. While distance and time are money, the direct costs of having to pay dumping fees are very important in the consideration of private contractors engaged in refuse disposal. If the dumping fees are seen to be too high, it is so much more tempting to just unload when no one is watching. Just imagine the savings to the contractors or to the individual operator when with one big lorry-load of 10-12 tons of refuse, he pays between $150 and $180 to the Ministry at $15 per ton, whereas if he succeeds in dumping illegally he pays very little or none at all. And trucks make several trips a day. So the temptation is that much bigger for him to dump illegally.

But what is savings to these private contractors is cost to the Government. In fact, the Minister himself also pointed this out, because the Government later has to clear up the refuse from such places. My friends told me an even more serious story. I believe it is somewhat exaggerated. They said that actually when the Government clears up one illegal dump for development of the land, it engages private contractors to remove the refuse. But what some of these private contractors do is to remove the refuse to other illegal dumps which later have to be cleared by the Government again when development comes along. So the costs of illegal dump- ing are hidden and because of these hidden costs we may not be totally aware of the seriousness of the problem.

Suffice it to say, as far as the Ministry is concerned, we think that the problem of illegal dumping calls for a three-prong approach - enforcement, stiffer fines or penalties, and lower dumping fees. It is timely to examine the schedule of fees again. Of course, the Government has to recover the cost of the land, at least its opportunity cost, but at the same time its fees actually include the element of scarcity rent as well as monopoly rent. But how to arrive at the schedule of fees which make it possible for the Government to maintain its operations, recover some of its development and operational costs but at the same time be affordable to the operators? My GPC proposes to discuss this point further with the Ministry. It may take some time. We may need the help of economists. But we would like really to look into this matter together with the Ministry further and we would assure the public that whatever changes that may be required or may be recommended will be fair to both the big and the small operators engaged in refuse removal.

The GPC, in general, also supports the provision of clause 31 which requires the licensing of the refuse removal businesses. We feel that this will help the Ministry to exercise better control, ensuring proper environmental health standards in a situation where up to one-third of the total amount annually of refuse collected is done by the private contractors. To be exact, in 1985, it was 34.3%. In 1986, it was 34.9%. Since licences are a means of livelihood, they can act as effective methods of making sure that refuse disposal is done properly by private contractors. At the same time, perhaps the Ministry could look at helping the private contractors to upgrade both the equipment, vehicles, raise productivity and to ensure the adherence to environmental public health standards. However, we feel that the upgrading process should be given some time to complete so that the private contractors, especially the smaller ones, could find reasonable ways to comply and to adjust.

Sir, with this, I would leave the debate to other members of the GPC and my other colleagues to continue on other aspects of the Bill.

Dr Ang Kok Peng (Buona Vista): Sir, I would like to seek some clarification from the Minister. Clause 34 which replaces section 42 of the Environmental Public Health Act being repealed provides for the licensing of itinerant hawkers. Today, apart from the ice-cream vendors who are mobile, all hawkers are now operating from stationary stalls. In connection with the retention of this provision, may I ask the Minister whether it is now the intention of his Ministry to re-introduce itinerant hawkers into the Singapore scene.

Part VI of the Bill deals specifically with noise control and clause 47, in particular, deals with the control of noise on construction sites. As we all know, Sir, many construction companies in Singapore are still using the noisy diesel piling hammers in their piling works. With the enactment of this Bill, will the Minister or his Ministry take immediate action against those using noisy diesel piling hammers or allow them a reasonable grace period?

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, the Bill is a step forward in our fight to preserve a higher standard of environmental public health. The proposed amendments serve to tighten the weaknesses in the system as well as incorporate changes in line with trends in public health.

Sir, I would like to touch briefly on clause 21 pertaining to the limits on fine for persons prosecuted in court for littering and clause 54 on the provision and the conditions of our public toilets. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment Ministry disclosed earlier this year in this House that some 8,449 persons were prosecuted in court for littering last year. This works out to a ratio of 1 in 300 Singaporeans caught and prosecuted in court for littering last year. This figure is not low if we were to include all those who littered and were not caught. A majority of these people prosecuted were caught littering in HDB estates. The amendment to double the upper limit on the fine from $500 to $1,000 will serve as a psychological deterrent to would-be litter-bugs. At best, it is a temporary solution to improving the cleanliness of our environment. I am not sure that if we were to continue to increase the limit on the fine, it will be a viable long- term solution towards a litter-free environment.

Sir, as I said, littering is more common in HDB estates than in other public places for the chances of being caught throwing litter from a highrise flat are indeed very slim compared to a similar act in a public place, be it at a market, at the hawker centre, at the cinema or at the bus stop. Stepping up enforcement by Ministry officials may be a solution but this can be a very labour-intensive and costly affair for the State. Ultimately, the solution lies in education. Cleanliness begins in the school and at home but this is an on-going and indeed a longer-term solution. There could be in the not too distant future a more effective solution to our problem of littering in housing estates and this could be found if we introduce the Town Council concept of running HDB estates. Under this scheme, the amount of conservancy charges could be pegged to the amount of litter to be cleared. The lesser the amount, the lower the charges. The more litter to be cleared, the higher the charges. This scheme has the advantage of not just promoting greater neighbourliness among residents but also to get residents to cooperate with each other to keep their flats, their void decks clean and tidy . Therein may lie the solution to our littering problem in HDB estates.

Sir, I would now like to cover very briefly clause 54 which states that the Commissioner for Public Health "may provide and maintain in proper and convenient situations toilets for public use". Sir, we discussed this subject among the GPC and its Resource Panel and it was felt that there is generally a lack of public toilets today in popular public places like the East Coast Parkway, the West Coast Park and fitness parks or barbecue parks. Very often, we see picnickers having to walk distances to wash and change themselves. And at the beach, many are lazy, many choose to change themselves in public. Some choose to wrap themselves in towel and change. To us Singaporeans, this may be a common sight. But to the foreigners, to the tourists, this is something quite unusual an act in public.

An hon. Member: No.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, I think the Ministry should seriously review the adequacy of public toilets and provide more public toilets in popular public places used by Singaporeans over the week-end. Sir, the lack of public toilets may have some correlation with the condition of public toilets today. The insanitary condition of some of our public toilets has been raised many a time in this House. I do not wish to debate it at great length today. It suffice me to mention that the problem of dirty toilets is still with us. I am aware that the Ministry of the Environment has been conscientiously tackling this problem through education and through enforcement action. It bears repeating that we cannot rely on the Ministry alone to solve this problem. We, the users, have a part to play too. In my experience as an MP for my constituency, I have made many a house visit and upon requests by residents inspected complaints of leaking toilets. Not surprisingly, I found most of these toilets in the home were neat, clean and tidy. Sir, we must be civic-minded. We should use and treat public toilets in the same manner as we use and treat our own toilets in the home. I hope the Ministry of the Environment could help convey this message through users of public toilets.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words on this Bill. First, I would like to reinforce the point brought up by the Member for Kaki Bukit on the increase in the maximum penalty for littering from $500 to $1,000. I think this is very stiff - $1,000 for littering one piece of paper on the road. But I was told by the officers at the Ministry during our meeting with them that this is only to act as a deterrent. The maximum penalty has never been implemented. The $500 has never been implemented too. But if you do not implement the maximum fine, how is it going to act as a deterrent? If people come to know that you do not, in fact, punish them with the $1,000 penalty, they will not respond to your heavier penalty.

But why is there a need for greater deterrent? I feel that perhaps we are a bit over-concerned with the littering problem in Singapore. I do not think our problem is that serious. In fact, on my way to Parliament from Katong, I could not detect a piece of litter on the road. I think that shows how clean we are in Singapore. In fact, Singapore is cleaner than most other cities in the world and, as we all know, we have the reputation of being a Clean and a Green City. Our present anti-litter law is very tough and with the strict enforcement operations and public education, we have been able over the years to achieve a very high standard of public cleanliness.

Today, littering is confined to only certain locations, certain spots along the East Coast Parkway. Even our HDB estates are very clean. It is only in isolated vacant turfed areas that we find litter. But on the whole, our estates are clean. But to tackle today's problem, we do not need to increase the maximum penalty. We need to step up enforcement and to give publicity to the present anti-litter laws and general education of the public on the need for good habits in public places. Increasing the maximum penalty to $1,000 may have the initial psychological threat. But in the long run, it will have no greater effect than the $500 penalty. The truth is that litter-bugs get away. They do it because they know they will be able to get away with it. How often does one get fined for throwing litter? Perhaps once in a lifetime, and I think that is a very small risk for them to take.

Also, as our society is now more mature, the educational approach of solving this littering problem is more acceptable to the people. Public signs should carry friendly advice rather than threat of punishment. So instead of "No Littering. Fine $500", I think we should say, "Thank you for keeping our parks clean" or "Thank you for not littering". It is just like the No Smoking Campaign. Before we used to say, "No Smoking", now we say, "Thank you for not smoking". So although littering is still a problem, it is not as serious, in my view, as the problem of spitting and urination in public places and the stench that is associated with our public toilets, which was hinted by the Member for Kaki Bukit. I think it is time for our Ministry to step up enforcement to further wipe out all these anti-social habits that belong to the colonial past of Singapore.

Sir, clauses 47 and 48 refer to the control of the problem of noise pollution on construction sites. Singapore is small and densely populated. Any major construction will give rise to noise pollution. Over the years with major housing development, noise pollution was at its highest level and the people had no choice but to live with the noise. Today, with the decline in housing construction, noise pollution is not so much of a problem. This new provision has come a little late. But, nonetheless, it is still appropriate for the Ministry to act now to control noise pollution.

The Bill has not stated the criteria for noise tolerance level. I believe this would be followed up in the regulations. But I believe the criteria for noise tolerance level at construction sites should vary from location to location, depending on the type of buildings nearby, whether the building nearby is a school, a hospital or a residential estate. I would like to suggest that perhaps the Ministry should not be too strict on the criteria for noise emitted from construction sites, as such noise is usually of a short duration and also because it is very costly to employ anti-noise pollution equipment. For example, using the bore piling is very much more expensive than the traditional diesel piling. The Ministry has already set up rules restricting the time for noise-emitting activities from construction sites. This is one way of controlling noise. The Ministry should perhaps look further into restricting the time even more if noise pollution is still a problem, for example, during the period of school examinations when students are studying. The Ministry should perhaps also set up a consultancy service to advise contractors and other Ministries in planning their development projects. This will be much better than taking remedial action against offenders as remedial measures are likely to be more costly and less effective.

Sir, there is no doubt the Environmental Public Health Bill is a tough piece of legislation to protect our environment. But Government regulations, no matter how strict, will not serve any useful purpose if they are not followed by vigorous implementation and enforcement. In this respect, I would like to say that it is my impression that the officers in the Ministry of Environment are committed and energetic in enforcing the regulations of the Ministry, and it is through their commitment and their dedication that we have a good, clean environment. However, nobody can deny that there is still room for improvement, evident by the many offenders that have been warned or prosecuted and many more who have got away time and again. I would like to suggest that the Minister consider introducing an incentive scheme to further motivate the officers. I would leave it to the Minister to consider the type of scheme that is more suitable for these officers.

Finally, I must also point out that I have not so infrequently received complaints from stallholders and constituents that some officers in their eagerness to discharge their duties have appeared to be unreasonable and have been accused of abusing or misusing their power. As we are encouraging courtesy, we should not allow our civil servants to show discourtesy in discharging their duties, no matter how difficult they may be. Thank you.

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Boon Teck): Sir, I support the Bill standing in the name of the Minister for the Environment.

This Bill has vast improvements over the existing one, particularly in two areas - the control of the disposal of industrial waste and the control of noise pollution. The disposal and removal of industrial waste has been an important issue ever since our country started to industrialize. Industrial waste can be toxic, ignitable, corrosive and even dangerously reactive. These wastes are generated as paint slugs from appliance factories, as dregs of chrome and nickel from metal plating shops, as spent raw materials for varnish and detergents at chemical plants. Industrial waste from semi-conductors and micro-chip fabrication operations are highly toxic. It is, therefore, of extreme importance to our environment that industrial waste be properly treated, recycled and disposed of. In developed countries, industry is required by law to keep a record of the industrial waste they generate in terms of type and weight, how they dispose of it and to whom they give it to for disposal. The person receiving the industrial waste for disposal is also required to keep a record of the industrial waste he receives and his method of disposal. Up to the present, there is no comprehensive way to compel industry to conform to this practice. At present the Ministry of the Environment has no regulations to allow them to monitor the disposal of industrial waste. If an organization chooses to dispose of the industrial waste illegally, they can only be punished after it has caused damage to the environment. For example, if an organization disposes of industrial waste by illegal dumping, they can only be fined. If the organization happens to dump the toxic waste near water catchment areas, thus causing pollution to water resources, they have to be prosecuted under the Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act. If they dispose of industrial waste by illegal incineration, they have to be prosecuted under the Clean Air Act.

But all these deterrents do not solve the problem at its roots. Nothing could be done by the Ministry until the offender has caused pollution. Sections 24 to 31 of the Bill now require the industry to keep records of the industrial waste right through the disposal chain which therefore allow the Ministry of Environment to monitor very closely the disposal system of industrial waste.

As early as 1976, the US Government has passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which directed their environment protection agency to regulate hazardous waste requiring them to be tracked and handled from creation to disposal a licensed and inspected facility. In 1978, the ECC also published a document which spelt similar guidelines. It seems only now that we have finally caught up with these regulations.

When this Bill is passed, I hope the Ministry of the Environment officers could play both an advisory role as well as a policing role when enforcing clauses 24 to 31 of this Bill. The industry will need some help as to how to comply with the new regulations. I urge the Ministry to set up an advisory committee on the handling and disposal of industrial waste to provide assistance to the industry, particularly to tell them where to go for help if they do not know how to treat and dispose the industrial waste.

Sir, the other clauses that are welcome additions are, of course, clauses 47 to 49 which deal with noise control. But these clauses concentrate only on noise pollution caused by construction work. Does construction work here include renovation work of apartments? As this Bill now includes a section on noise control, I would have thought the amendment would cover areas of noise pollution caused by public performance or noise caused by people playing games late into the night near residential areas, also on aspects of noise caused by aeroplanes taking off and landing at airports as well as noise nuisance caused by heavy traffic movement near housing residential apartments. Will the Ministry please clarify why clauses 47 to 49 are restricted to construction noise only?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Members of the GPC on Health and the Environment for their interest in the Bill. I shall now deal with the points raised by them. But before I begin, perhaps a better slogan to the one proposed by the Member for Telok Blangah is: Please try to save your $500 by not littering!

Sir, the Member for Changkat and concurrently the Chairman of the GPC on Health and the Environment and also the other Members of the GPC have expressed concern on the need for stiffer penalties as recommended in the Bill. They want to know the rationale for the increase in the maximum fines for offences like littering, spitting, illegal hawking and illegal dumping despite the fact, they say, that the number of such offences has decreased over the years. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the increase in fines for the offences mentioned is really intended to impress upon the recalcitrants of the seriousness of the offences they are committing. The majority of Singaporeans I believe like to live in a clean and green city and they are proud of our reputation for being such. The Government has done short of a miracle or near miracle in cleaning up Singapore and this is something which we should all be proud of. No other government, I think, has done or has been able to accomplish an exercise of the magnitude we have undertaken. Therefore it is in our interest not to allow all these years of effort to be eclipsed by some of the easier approaches that have been suggested in the course of the debate on this Bill this morning.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as a long-term goal, we hope that every citizen of Singapore will have enough pride and civic consciousness to not only refrain from polluting the environment but also to exert peer pressure on those who do so that we can eliminate their bad practices.

As to whether Town Councils will be more effective in controlling littering, as suggested by the Member for Kaki Bukit, it is not easy for me to say at this point of time. But where Town Councils are successful in communicating closely with the residents of the estates under their charge, there is every confidence that they may succeed. But on the Member for Kaki Bukit's suggestion that the lesser the litter they produce, the lesser the conservancy charge they pay, my question is: where will they throw away the litter in order to pay the lesser conservancy charge as proposed? This will only increase more illegal dumping, I think.

On the question of illegal dumping, I am glad that many Members agree that there is need for stringent measures to be taken in order to deter this act. Illegal dumps, apart from being potential breeding grounds for mosquitoes and rodents, may also contain, as I had mentioned in my Second Reading speech just now, toxic chemicals which may pollute our watercourses and hence give rise to health hazards.

Again, on the subject of illegal dumping, the Member for Changkat has suggested that apart from enforcement and stiffer penalties, perhaps the Ministry should look into other ways which would encourage people to bring their refuse to the incineration plants and dumping grounds. I certainly welcome her suggestion and perhaps my Ministry together with the GPC should look into this.

The Member for Buona Vista has touched on Clause 34. Let me explain. The retention of Clause 34 in the Bill is to allow the present itinerant hawkers who are selling bread and ice-cream to continue with their trade. As to whether the retention of this clause may lead to the introduction of itinerant hawkers in Singapore is a subject, I believe, being discussed between the Ministry and the Members of the GPC arising from the GPC Chairman's proposal that the Ministry should allow handicraft-type street hawking to be introduced in Singapore. And I think the discussions are still going on now.

The Member for Buona Vista also wants to know whether the Ministry would take action not to allow any more diesel piling hammers to be used at construction sites. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member may be pleased to know that a Technical Committee under the chairmanship of the Environment Ministry with membership from the HDB, URA, JTC, PWD and also the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) was formed in 1984 to look into the problem of noise at construction sites. Views of the Singapore Contractors' Association Limited (SCAL) and the views of Prof. Broms, an expert in piling at the NTI, were also sought. And these views were incorporated by the Committee in arriving at their decisions. The Committee has recommended that:

(a) Diesel piling hammers be phased out gradually and, in the first instance, use of diesel piling hammers should be banned in the Central Business District and within 200 metres from schools, hospitals and other such sensitive areas.

(b) A grace period of one year be given so that the contractors will have sufficient response time. In fact, the contractors have only asked for a 9-month grace period.

(c) Restriction on the use of piling hammers be applied gradually to all densely built-up areas in Singapore at a later date.

I am happy to say, Sir, that in this regard our local contractors have been most cooperative and they have been voluntarily phasing out the old diesel machines which are noisy and pollutive and replacing them with less pollutive machines like the hydraulic hammers.

The Member for Buona Vista also wants to know whether the replacement of diesel piling hammers with something else will cost more in terms of the cost of the project. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, among all the methods of piling, bored piling is about the best alternative. But as the Member for Telok Blangah has mentioned, it could be very costly. But if for some reason driven piles are preferred, then a suitable alternative to diesel piling hammers is the hydraulic hammers. They are less noisy and less pollutive.

The piling cost using hydraulic hammers is about 10% more than that using diesel piling hammers. And since the piling cost is usually about 5% of the total building cost, then the increase in piling cost would amount to only about half a per cent of the total building cost if hydraulic hammers are used instead of diesel piling hammers.

The Member for Kaki Bukit has touched on the cleanliness of public toilets and I am glad that he says that the measures taken by the Ministry are not sufficient to bring about clean public toilets and that the users themselves have a role to play. And as I mentioned in this House before, the users must play a role in observing good personal hygiene and enough civic consciousness to make sure that the public toilets are clean for the other users.

With regard to the lack or not enough public toilets at popular public places, I will certainly ask my Ministry to look into it. For the information of this House, Sir, my Ministry plans to launch another campaign sometime this year to reinforce the message to keep our public toilets clean. The target groups of this campaign will be the managements of public toilets and, of course, the users of public toilets, and also the maintenance and cleansing contractors. This campaign will be run on a nation-wide basis and will involve other Government Ministries and departments, private organizations as well as cleansing contractors. During this campaign, my Ministry will impress upon the public that it is a basic courtesy and a social responsibility that users of public toilets do not y.use or misuse the facilities provided. And with the cooperation of everyone concerned, I think we can hope to see marked improvements in the state of our public toilets.

The Member for Boon Teck has suggested that perhaps the Ministry should set up an advisory committee on the handling and disposal of industrial waste and that it is for this committee to render assistance to industries which may require assistance with regard to the handling as well as the disposal of toxic wastes. I welcome this suggestion and I will certainly ask my Ministry to look into it.

I think I have covered most of the points raised by Members.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is approaching 1.00 pm. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm