DANGEROUS FIREWORKS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.45 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Bill seeks to introduce deterrent penalties for those convicted of selling or distributing dangerous fireworks as well as those discharging such fireworks.

Sixteen years ago we banned fireworks. And for very good reasons because the discharging of firecrackers had caused loss of property, injury and even death. For example, on the 15th day of the Chinese New Year in 1970, firecrackers caused three major fires and six people died. During the Lunar New Year period that year, as many as 39 fires were caused by firecrackers; 68 people were injured and eight shops completely gutted.

It was senseless that so many people should have been maimed and killed in this way. Thus on 30th March, 1970, exactly 18 years ago, Parliament enacted the Minor Offences Act to prohibit the firing of crackers unless permits were obtained from the Police.

In 1971 and 1972, firecrackers were allowed at designated venues. However, the illegal firing of crackers continued, 26 people being injured in 1972. On the eve of the Lunar New Year the same year, two police officers were brutally attacked by a group of men firing crackers.

On 2nd June 1972, Parliament enacted the Dangerous Fireworks Bill to prohibit the possession or discharge of firecrackers and other dangerous fireworks. The penalty was a maximum fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for a maximum term of two years or both.

Since then each year, especially during the festive periods, the Police have been reminding the public that it is illegal to possess or let off firecrackers. Despite these reminders, there have been contraventions but, in the main, these were isolated and sporadic.

This year, however, the disregard for the law took a serious turn. In the first two months of this year 3,983 complaints were received by the Police on the discharge of firecrackers and fireworks. This was an unprecedented increase. For last year we saw only 721 complaints being received. Most of the complainants were very angry HDB residents. Despite the penalties imposed by the courts under the existing law and the wide publicity given to such cases, the number of offenders did not abate. Since January this year, 224 persons have been arrested for fireworks offences. 172 have been prosecuted and fines ranging from $2,000 to $5,000 and imprisonment for two cases for up to two months and one case for up to three months have been imposed.

Sir, other countries have also experienced the devastating effects of cracker firing, with loss of property, lives and injuries. For example, the authorities in the United Kingdom are concerned over the number of accidents and fires caused by fireworks to celebrate Guy Fawke's Day. There have also been numerous reports of damage to property, injuries, deaths in a number of countries where fireworks have not been banned. In China, we read recently that an entire village was destroyed by a fire caused by firecrackers.

Sir, of course, in Singapore we do not have villages as there are in China. It is also true that today we have not as many squatter areas and dilapidated buildings as in the early 70s. But it does not mean that fireworks no longer pose a danger. We all know that Singapore is a small country. We are densely populated. The majority of our people live in HDB high-rise flats. In fact, we are literally living on top of each other. The dangers of firecrackers to life, limb and property are, in fact, that much greater today. The Director of the Fire Service is greatly concerned about the potential for fires. Firecrackers let off from upper floors can cause fires in flats below. And if it is a packet that is let off with many firecrackers, they can enter several flats below, and multiple fires can occur. The problem is further compounded, Sir, by the more dangerous and new varieties of fireworks and firecrackers which are now available.

We must stop this illegal discharge of fireworks completely. Otherwise the deaths, injuries, damage to property we saw in the early 70s will occur all over again.

Quite clearly, Sir, the penalties under the existing law are inadequate to deter both those importing and trafficking in dangerous fireworks as well as those discharging them. The Bill therefore seeks to enhance the penalties to make them sufficiently deterrent. To put an immediate stop to this problem and to ensure it does not re-emerge, stiffer penalties are necessary. Ample warnings and notice have been given. The new penalties will only be applicable to those who choose to break the law. It is designed to protect the vast majority of law-abiding citizens from the harmful and dangerous consequences of the acts of a minority of irresponsible people.

Let me now, Sir, highlight some of the provisions. The severest penalties are reserved for those who are importing, selling or distributing fireworks. Clause 2 of the Bill makes it an offence for any person to sell, transport, send, deliver, distribute or import any dangerous fireworks. It prescribes mandatory imprisonment and caning for such offence. Those convicted will be imprisoned for not less than six months but not more than two years and with caning of not more than six strokes. Under this provision, anybody found with fireworks entering Singapore at any entry point will be charged for importation of fireworks. The Attorney-General has confirmed that the proposed amendment empowers prosecution of anyone entering Singapore found with fireworks in his possession.

Sections 3A(4) and (5) provide for a presumption that any shopkeeper who has fireworks in his premises or in any vehicle connected with his business would be presumed to have them for sale, transport, delivery, or distribution which is an offence. The shopkeeper of course, however, can prove to the court that it was not for sale.

Sir, the Bill also prescribes the penalty for an offence of discharging or letting off firecrackers. For first offenders the fine has been increased to not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000; or imprisonment, that is optional imprisonment, up to two years which is the present position; in other words that has not been changed. For repeat offenders, the penalty will be mandatory imprisonment of up to two years and caning of not more than six strokes.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Ang Kok Peng (Buona Vista): Sir, I rise to support the Amendment Bill. We all know the damages that have been caused by careless, irresponsible and mischievous acts of discharging fireworks. This has been well publicized by the mass media and recapitulated by the Hon. Minister just now.

I am alarmed that the number of offences against the law relating to the possession and discharge of fireworks rose sharply in the early months of this year. It would seem that the existing legislation and the penalty provided therein are inadequate to deter people from flouting the law. It is therefore understandable that the Hon. Minister feels compelled to introduce this Amendment Bill which contains a new section 3(A) prohibiting the sale, transport, delivery, distribution or import of fireworks and the penalty for its contravention, and also a new section 5 to replace the original section 5 in order to increase the penalty for an offence under section 3(1)(b).

Section 5(2) of the Bill provides the penalty for the offence of discharging dangerous fireworks. For the first offence, the penalty is a fine varying from a minimum of $2,000 to a maximum of $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both fine and imprisonment. And for a repeat offence, the penalty is a mandatory imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and caning of six strokes.

I would like the Hon. Minister to reconsider this section. To me it seems to be too harsh. I am thinking of juveniles and young persons below 16 years old who may not fully appreciate the seriousness of the offence, and may unwittingly commit the offence when they mistakenly consider their acts as no more than mere childish pranks. To punish these minors so severely may create psychological problems. The punishment may leave behind in these young minds an indelible mark that could lead to a life-time of mental aberration with undesirable consequences for society.

While I admit that we must have adequate punishment for offenders, I think we need to exert greater efforts at prevention of crime through education in schools and by the mass media. Punishment alone is not the answer. We have adequate punishment for littering, illegal parking, dangerous driving, unhygienic food handling by vendors, etc, and yet these irresponsible and anti-social acts are still prevalent. Perhaps the problem lies in some of our people who play the game of cat and mouse with the law. They will commit an offence if they think they can get away with it. This they regard as fair game. These people have yet to be taught that every citizen is duty bound to observe the law for the proper functioning of society. How do we go about inculcating in these people that no breach of the law should take place even when nobody is around to arrest offenders? I leave this question for the Hon. Minister to ponder.

While supporting the Bill, I would want the Hon. Minister to bear in mind my comments.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, can I just seek a clarification from the Member for Buona Vista? Which particular provision does the Member consider to be particularly harsh and which will have mental aberration on a juvenile?

Dr Ang Kok Peng: This would be for the repeat offence which is provided under section 5(2).

Prof. Jayakumar: Thank you.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Sir, I wish to speak in support of the Amendment Bill. The recent sharp increase in the number of incidents involving illegal discharge of firecrackers and fireworks is a cause for serious concern. The proposed amendment is timely and would, I hope, provide the necessary deterrent to people who continue to disregard the law. Although the letting off of dangerous fireworks was banned 16 years ago, we must continue to ensure that the ban is not flouted. Firm action must be taken against offenders. According to the Police, offenders are classified into three age groups. The arrest figures pertaining to these three groups give some indication on the type of offenders and we must direct closer attention to each group in the appropriate manner.

Sir, may I quote these figures to support my arguments? Those below 16 years for the period 1st January to 13th March 1988, 85 offenders; from 16-21 years, 92 offenders; 21 years and above, 46 offenders; making a total of 223 offenders for this first quarter alone. The first group, ie, below 16 years of age were not born when the ban on the letting off of fire crackers was introduced. They have committed the offences out of curiosity or ignorance of the dangerous consequences. For this, I share the sentiments expressed by my colleague, the Member for Buona Vista. Therefore, we must educate them by creating a better awareness of the dangers to life and properties. The second group which I would term the "mischievous group" commit the offences more out of mischief or peer group influence. The third group are the hard-core or diehards and they should be given the severest punishment.

Then there are those who import, distribute, sell or pedal dangerous fireworks for monetary gains and quick profits at the expense of causing extreme sufferings to innocent people.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides fines, caning and custodial penalties. Are these adequate as a deterrent to stamp out this menace? In my opinion, the Minister should consider additional penalties to give a clear message to would-be offenders. Perhaps a provision for the forfeiture of vehicles used in the transportation of dangerous fireworks and firecrackers. And also getting the cooperation of HDB and JTC to consider terminating the tenancies of tenants who use their premises for the storage or sale of dangerous fireworks. In fact, this is being done by the HDB for gambling and killer litter offences.

Besides creating a greater public awareness on the dangers of letting off fireworks and firecrackers and stiffer penalties, we should also look into other areas like foreign sources of supplies. I understand that the Malaysian and Indonesian governments permit the letting off of fireworks and firecrackers during festive occasions other than during the Chinese New Year period. Because of this, dangerous fireworks and firecrackers are obtainable all year round and readily accessible to people in Singapore. Perhaps we could seek the assistance and cooperation of these two governments in stamping out this menace, not only in Singapore but also in their own countries. After all, serious casualties have occurred recently in these two countries. In Malaysia, a young boy was seriously injured when a firecracker was thrown into his mouth, blowing a hole in his throat. Another had his fingers blown off. In Surabaya, Indonesia, 11 people died and 26 were injured when a truck load of fireworks exploded in a crowded street. 10 were charred beyond recognition. According to a newsreport, the truck carrying the fireworks exploded like a bomb. People in the neighbourhood panicked. Six cars, two motorcycles and a number of rickshaws were destroyed.

Sir, I am not attempting to create a panic scenario. Imagine such a catastrophe happening in an HDB estate. Because of the density of our buildings and people, casualties and damage to properties will be of a great magnitude. I hope the Minister will take a serious view of my comments.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong): Sir, I rise to support the Dangerous Fireworks (Amendment) Bill.

I think all of us have no quarrel with the imposition of heavier penalties on fireworks offenders. I am in full agreement with the Minister that living in a compact cosmopolitan city such as ours, we just cannot afford to allow people to let off firecrackers, either for noise pollution or other hazard reasons.

As mentioned by the Minister just now, during the recent Chinese New Year festive period, many people were arrested for trafficking, possessing or letting off firecrackers. What perturbs me is that many of these offenders are teenagers and students, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Toa Payoh just now. What perturbs me more is that these offenders, ranging from 14 to 17 years old, on conviction, are widely reported in the media. Some even have their photographs published in the newspaper. I really pity them.

I understand this is to serve as a deterrent to potential offenders. But can we not pause for a moment to think of the future of these teenage offenders? Is it not too traumatic to these teenage offenders? Apart from having criminal records, these teenagers are condemned by the society. Is our society that unkind and ruthless?

Sir, I know the Minister for Home Affairs is a kind-hearted man. I am sure he would not like to see our students, some of whom may be unaware of the law, to have their future ruined in this manner. May I know from the Minister, apart from being armed with stiffer legislation to tackle fireworks problems, whether his Ministry will launch an education programme to educate our people, in particular our students, on the danger of letting off of firecrackers and the heavy penalties they have to face if they are convicted?

Another point is that during festive seasons, whether a more thorough check could be carried out at Woodlands Checkpoint as we notice that many of the firecrackers are smuggled from Malaysia during these seasons.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I say that the Government has really gone overboard in trying to stamp out the firecracker menace. As has been pointed out by other speakers, the penalties are manifestly excessive.

As regards the stamping out of the sale, transport, send, deliver, distribute or import of fireworks, we see that there is a mandatory jail sentence of 6 months and also a mandatory sentence of 6 strokes of the cane. This is really very harsh. Because this does not take into account whether a person is caught selling just one single firecracker or a truckload of firecrackers. In any event, if he is caught and if he is sentenced, the judge's hands are tied. He has got no discretion to mete out a lower sentence. I think there is really unfairness here. This Bill, I think, should be held in abeyance until this clause is looked into more thoroughly.

Of course, as has been pointed out in regard to the second offence, again there is mandatory caning. Children are children. They tend to be mischievous.

It would appear that the Government is already very much in control of the firecracker situation. We have already banned it and the situation, it would appear, is very much under control. And yet there is this sudden technique to amend the laws and make it so stiff a penalty for those caught either selling or firing firecrackers. The Minister himself has said that, in fact, this problem is isolated and sporadic, except for this year when there were 3,900 complaints. I am surprised the other speakers do not know the reason why. It is very obvious. This year is the dragon year and everybody wants to welcome the dragon year. That is why there is a sudden burst of firing of crackers. The Minister himself said the situation is isolated and sporadic except for this year when there is a sudden unprecedented increase. There is also going to be an unprecedented increase of births this year. We can see for ourselves all around town. More women are pregnant this year.

The Government should not panic because of a sudden increase. People are still superstitious. This firing of firecrackers is not a tradition which started only yesterday. It is a 2,000-year or more tradition. I think habits die hard and customs also die hard. And, in particular, when the dragon year comes only once in 12 years. I think the Minister should be more vigilant the next dragon year comes around and not to change the law. I think it is really over reacting and the consequences of the punishment are very serious. I would really ask the Minister to look into the punishment section once again.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I share the Minister's concern and I rise in support of the Bill. I have only one point to raise with the Minister and it is about new section 3A(3). In the case of an offence committed by a person who is an employee, with the connivance or consent of certain corporate officers, I can understand sthe latter should also be punished. However, if it is a case of neglect, it puts many corporate officers at risk. There are many employees who have access to company premises and vehicles. In fact, these employers drive some company vehicles home. Hence, it will be be very difficult for many corporate officers to prove that there was no neglect on their part if their subordinates have unchecked use of these vehicles. Should any of these employees make use of the vehicles for the purpose which is defined as an offence under this Act, it will be very difficult for these officers to extricate themselves.

Will the Minister look into this, Sir?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. Before replying to specific comments, may I just state a general point by way of preface, ie, we have banned fireworks 16 years ago. And either a ban is a ban or it is not. This year, there has been an unprecedented number of violations, nearly 4,000 for January and February. The Member for Potong Pasir is entitled to his conclusion that it is because of the dragon year. But I tend to share the explanations given by others that the real reason is that there is a plentiful supply outside Singapore and that is the view of the Police officers also.

Secondly, Sir, another general point about the penalties. If you look at the Bill as a whole, there are four different types of penalties, in ascending order.

First of all, we have penalties for the offence of possession, which is in the existing Dangerous Fireworks Act, and that has not been changed.

Second, there is the penalty for those discharging or letting off fire crackers. The penalty on the fine has been changed. The penalty for imprisonment has not been changed.

Third is the penalty for those who are repeat offenders, discharging or letting off fire crackers. Obviously, for repeat offenders, it must be more deterrent and punitive because he has already been charged and convicted in the first place for a previous offence.

Finally, the most serious penalties are reserved for those who are importing, trafficking and distributing.

Sir, may I now turn to the points raised by various Members. The Member for Buona Vista expressed the view that the penalty for repeat offenders is very harsh. But I would like him to look at it from another point of view. The Bill is to provide for deterrent penalties because we have a serious problem and the consequences are very dangerous. A person has been convicted for the first time. If he repeats it, surely he knows that he is asking for trouble. If the penalty for the repeat offender is not commensurate with the mischief behind it, then he cannot claim that he was ignorant because in the first place he had been previously convicted and sentenced by a court. So I think it is not too harsh to have this provision in the new section 5(2)(b) which provides a harsher penalty for those who are repeat offenders.

I should also like to draw an analogy between this Bill and the Vandalism Act. The Vandalism Act provides for mandatory caning even for a first-time offender and the Vandalism Act can be said to be offences against property. There is mandatory caning if the writings on public property, for example, cannot be erased. But in the case of fireworks, it is not just an offence against property, it can have very serious consequences for the lives of individuals.

As far as his point on education, a point which was made by the Member for Toa Payoh also, and to some extent echoed by the Member for Jurong, I take the point, and that is, apart from the new measures we should not cease to remind people of the prohibition of fire crackers as well as try to educate, especially the younger citizens. This is being done and will continue to be done. For instance, this year my Ministry did seek the cooperation of the Ministry of Education which, in turn, had advised the schools, the teachers and the principals, to inform the pupils of the consequences of cracker firing.

As far as education is concerned, I must also say, and I think all Members have observed it, the press and the TV have played a very crucial role in the past few months in recapitulating for the public the horrors and the deaths and injuries which occurred in the 1970's. It is necessary to remind ourselves and I think the press and the TV have played an important role in bringing this to the attention of all Singaporeans.

The Member for Toa Payoh felt that the penalties are inadequate. With particular reference to those who are importing and trafficking, he asked that we consider additional penalties such as forfeiture of the vehicles, eviction of HDB tenants from their homes, and such like penalties. I think we should first see if these enhanced penalties provided for in the Bill would meet our objective and, of course, if the situation next year is a repeat of this year, then we may have to reconsider the Bill. And we will take into account at that time the suggestions that he has made.

The Member for Jurong took the view that perhaps it is too traumatic an experience to publicize the photographs of the people, especially younger persons who have been punished. There is a different view that can be taken, and that is, that it is part of the whole deterrent process. "You expect to commit a fire cracking offence and you want to get away with it." First of all, it is very difficult for the police to actually catch a person in the act of fire cracking. Calls come from an HDB estate, they turn up at the area, it is impossible to find anyone. So when they do get a person and apprehend the culprit, then we must send a signal to everyone concerned that you cannot fire crackers and sneak away without people knowing about it. I would say this is part of the whole deterrent process, deterrent not only to the youngsters, but also deterrent to the parents, for the parents must exercise vigilance, supervision and control over their children.

The Member mentioned that there should be greater vigilance at the Woodlands checkpoint. I wish to assure him that I will take his point. In fact, it is being done with the Woodlands Task Force that was formed recently.

The Member for Potong Pasir felt that the penalties are manifestly excessive. He referred particularly to the penalties for those charged for trafficking. I think he made two points. The first point was that there is no discretion given. This is not quite correct. There is discretion given within which the courts can take into account the circumstances of the case. The penalty is "a term of not less than 6 months and not more than 2 years." In other words, there is a minimum of six months and not more than two years, and within this range the court can take into account factors so that they can determine whether to give a penalty of more than six months or up to two years. Similarly, caning with not more than six strokes. But it means the court has a discretion whether to impose a sentence with a maximum of six strokes or whether it will be just one stroke. So there is a discretion and it is not correct to say ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: "Six strokes or more". You cannot get three, can you?

Prof. Jayakumar: The phrase is, "be punished with caning with not more than 6 strokes." So there is a discretion for the court to decide whether it wants to impose the full penalty of six strokes or less than six strokes. The Member can correct me if he thinks he is still right.

The second point that the Member made is that it is unfair because it does not distinguish one cracker from two crackers. We thought about this, Sir. But it is not easy to work that kind of a number into the provision. We are not talking about one cracker, a packet of crackers, what size of packing, what size of cracker, and the nature of the cracker, because you may have one single cracker brought in but it can be of the dangerous type. It can be a projectile. Then what happens if you say, "Well, if you bring in one cracker, it is all right." So we have a tour group that comes in with 40 people in the bus, each person brings in one. So they are all innocent?

So I come back to first principles. We have had a ban for 16 years. Either we intend that it should be a ban or we do not. Our intention is that it stays as a ban. I have told Members of the concern and the consequences and of the advice given by the Director of Fire Service. It is naive to say, "Well, this year, it is all right. We can close an eye. It would not happen till many more years until the next dragon year." That is not so. If you just cross over the Causeway, you will find plentiful supplies there because the Malaysian government lifted their ban on crackers this year. Hence, plentiful of supplies were available. But the Member for Toa Payoh suggested that we should liaise with the other agencies. I am sure other countries are the best judge of what they want to do in their countries. But we have to take care of our situation because of our peculiar circumstances - our densely populated areas, our HDB highrise flats. We have to make sure that we put in place enough controls, enough deterrents, and enough penalties so that all the points raised by Members as to the horrendous consequences elsewhere will not arise here. So it is not a question of waiting either for a dragon year or waiting for other countries to take their action. We have to take our action ourselves.

Finally, the point made by the Member for Radin Mas. The intention of that particular provision is to make it sure and make it clear that no one can try to evade these provisions under the cloak of a corporate veil. The precise implementation of this will have to be left to the Attorney-General because in any case a case must be made out to the courts and evidence established as to who is responsible and culpable, and this will be done.

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. - [Prof. Jayakumar].

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