FIRE SAFETY BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, the Bill consolidates into one law fire safety provisions in various other legislation such as the Fire Service Act, the Building Control Act and the Petroleum Act. At the same time, it also introduces new provisions for more effective enforcement of fire safety standards. Before I go into the provisions, may I make a few general remarks as to why the Government attaches importance to the enforcement of fire safety standards?

Sir, in many countries, fires in urban areas have caused disasters resulting in the loss of many lives and severe damage to properties. We read about such disasters regularly in the media. In January this year, a fire in a Taipei restaurant killed 33 people and injured 21 others, which was believed to be Taiwan's highest death toll in a single fire. What was the cause? Apparently it was the locking of emergency exits. In May this year, a fire in a factory in Thailand, believed to be the world's worst factory fire in history, claimed 210 lives. It was reported that this building had no proper emergency exits and that the alarm system failed to activate, resulting in the workers in the building not being warned of the fire outbreak. Perhaps these disasters could have been prevented or the terrible consequences reduced if fire preventive measures had been taken. Such illustrations underline my Ministry's concerns and drive home the need to constantly review fire safety standards and the powers available to the authorities to deal with fire hazards to protect lives and property.

The need for effective fire safety legislation, I would say, is much more acute for us in Singapore where our urban areas are among the most densely populated in the world. We have a very high concentration of high-rise buildings - hotels, shopping complexes and offices. Many of them house hundreds if not thousands of persons at different times of the day. For example, the buildings in Shenton Way during the weekdays and in Orchard Road during the weekends are packed with people at all times. While we have been spared the wrenching agony of a major fire disaster, there should be no mistake: we become very vulnerable if we are not vigilant. Our fire safety legislation must not only prescribe minimum safety standards but also ensure that these are implemented, complied with and effectively enforced.

May I make another point? While the Government can legislate strict building and fire safety codes and enforce them, the prevention of a towering inferno situation in Singapore actually calls for active cooperation of all parties concerned - building owners, building management, Government and everyone who resides in these buildings or who works in them.

May I now turn to the provisions of the Bill which is modelled largely after the Building Control Act? The new provisions of the Bill are based on local as well as foreign legislation which are modified to suit our own circumstances. References to the local and foreign laws on which the Bill is based may be found in the comparative table set out at the end of the Bill.

First, I will deal with the powers for abatement of fire hazards in Part II of the Bill. These are new provisions which give powers to the Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to deal with fire hazards. Fire hazards can exist in many forms, the most common being obstruction of escape routes and overcrowding. In fact, we are very concerned over the problem of obstruction of escape routes. Restaurants, discotheques and departmental stores frequently ignore the dangers they cause by blocking corridors with their merchandise or by locking their emergency exits. The managements choose to lock their emergency exits sometimes, according to them, to guard against theft, unauthorised entry, shoplifting or perhaps prevent people from leaving without paying their bills. Another problem is overcrowding which frequently occurs in entertainment outlets like discotheques. In many of these outlets the number of persons present far exceeds the permitted capacity. All these are very dangerous and irresponsible acts. Members must have read of other instances where a lot of people have died in entertainment outlets when fires have broken out.

In establishments where such problems exist, the Civil Defence Fire Safety Bureau does carry out enforcement measures, but unfortunately with very little success, because the law presently is inadequate, both in terms of deterrent penalties and the requisite powers. Consequently, such outlets have flagrantly disregarded the safety of their patrons in order to maximise profits. The Fire Safety Bureau has been grappling with these problems for many years, but until and unless we change the law, we will never be able to resolve the problems.

Clauses 13 to 16 of the Bill give the Commissioner of Civil Defence Force the following powers to deal with fire hazard in any premises:

(a) Requiring the owner of any premises to abate the fire hazard found therein within a specific period.

(b) Initiating steps to abate it where the person responsible for the fire hazard cannot be found.

(c) Where the notice to abate a fire hazard is not complied with and where there is immediate or substantial threat to life or property, for example, in an emergency, the Commissioner can take all necessary steps to abate the fire hazard. This includes removing or seizing property that constitutes a fire hazard.

He can also order the owner to close the premises for up to 72 hours if there is no other way to ensure the safety of the people in the premises; and apply to the Court to extend the closure of the premises for such period as is necessary to enable steps to be taken to abate the fire hazard.

(d) In all other non-emergency cases where there is non-compliance with his notice or where he is of the view that the fire hazard is likely to recur, the Commissioner has to apply to a Court for a fire hazard order requiring the owner to abate the hazard, prohibiting him from using the premises in any manner that may result in fire hazards.

Next, I turn to the provisions concerning the role of the building managements in Part III of the Bill. We all know that in Singapore we have a very large number of high-rise complexes which are frequented daily by a large number of persons. These buildings may be designed with adequate means of escape and equipped with sophisticated fire-fighting and fire-detection systems. But such measures are only effective if escape routes are kept free of obstruction, if occupants know what to do in the event of a fire, and if the fire safety equipment are properly maintained. But the trouble is that the fire safety systems in some buildings are not well maintained, for example, fire doors have been wedged open, fire extinguishers and hose reels found not serviceable and valves to rising mains damaged and so on. In some cases, the staff and occupants are ignorant of evacuation procedures. Thus, if there is a real fire situation, the resulting confusion and inability of these equipment to work will easily lead to the loss of many lives. Therefore, building owners and managements can and should be required to do more for fire safety.

For these purposes, clauses 21 to 23 of Part III of the Bill require the building owner or occupier, ie, the building management, of the designated larger, high-rise commercial buildings to:

(a) formulate fire emergency plans and conduct regular fire drills to ensure that occupants are familiar with all the escape routes and can be evacuated in a speedy and orderly manner in the event of a fire; and

(b) appoint qualified Fire Safety Managers to assist the building owner or occupier in ensuring that fire safety systems in the building are well maintained and fire emergency plans are properly formulated and exercised.

The buildings that will be affected by these provisions are hotels, places of entertainment and public resort, offices and hospitals where there is a large number of visitors and occupants. Similar requirements are found in the fire safety laws of many countries such as Japan, Canada and the United States.

If I may touch on the other provisions, the prior approval of the Commissioner of Civil Defence is required for any works in a building which involve the installation of fire protection and fire-detection systems or the use of combustible materials which affect the means of escape. Appeals against the decision can be made to the Minister who may seek advice from an Appeals Advisory Board.

The penalties under the existing Petroleum Act have not been revised for more than 30 years. Fines for offences will be increased to deter non-compliance and the fines will be comparable to those under the Building Control Act. For more effective enforcement against offenders, the Bill will provide for simpler prosecution procedures and for the confiscation of stocks and equipment.

There are also provisions to enable the Commissioner of Civil Defence, with the approval of the Minister, to farm out specific functions of the Fire Safety Bureau to qualified persons such as architects and engineers registered with the Board of Architects or the Professional Engineers Board. Initially, only inspections of buildings for the purposes of issuing fire safety certificates will be farmed out to qualified persons. More functions may be farmed out in future if feasible and if there is a need.

In conclusion, Sir, may I reiterate the main concern behind this Bill in these simple terms. If we want to avoid a large-scale high-rise fire, then we must ensure that small fires are stopped at their incipient stage. Better still, prevent any fire from breaking out at all. This calls for increased vigilance and effectiveness in fire prevention, fire detection and fire fighting. We can succeed in this only through the concerted efforts of everyone concerned, whether it be the Civil Defence and its Fire Safety Bureau, the professionals for inspecting the plans, the building owners or the general public who inhabit, reside or work in the building.

These new provisions seek to provide the Fire Safety Bureau and the Civil Defence with the necessary powers for more effective enforcement of these fire safety standards. With these additional powers, the Civil Defence will have the means, working together with these other parties, to curb and prevent fire hazard situations which endanger public safety.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed: Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a significant development towards further improving fire safety standards in Singapore and therefore I rise in support of it.

Sir, Singapore today is dotted with skyscrapers and to ignore sound contingency plans to deal with major fire disasters affecting high-rise buildings will only imperil the lives of our citizens. However, to-date, we have been fortunate that our Civil Defence Force has a good track record of fighting fires and protecting people and property. But it is essential that close monitoring is done to ensure buildings, be they old or new, are fitted with adequate fire safety features.

Sir, under this Bill, building owners are required to employ a trained Fire Safety Manager to maintain fire safety standards, ie, people who are trained through special courses conducted jointly by the Civil Defence Force and the Ngee Ann Polytechnic. In this respect, I understand that to qualify to pursue the course one must have a minimum of three GCE 'O' passes, including Science and Mathematics. Because of this requirement, there is much anxiety on the part of personnel who are currently performing fire safety duties but who do not possess the necessary paper qualifications that they may lose their jobs. Although some are given an opportunity to undergo the course they are made to understand that they will not be given a second chance should they fail to make it the first time. Sir, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification in order to alleviate this fear.

Another concern which I wish to highlight, Sir, is that presently, in most public buildings, the personnel engaged to look after the fire safety aspect come from people like Chief Engineers, Maintenance Managers or Chief Security Officers. In other words, they are doubling up as Fire Safety Managers whilst performing their full-time jobs. While this pool of people may have successfully undergone the Fire Safety Course, in reality, there will hardly be any opportunity for them to face a real life situation and thus there is a likelihood that they may lose their competency as they are not professional fire fighters. Could the Minister therefore enlighten this House as to what measures can be taken to counter this?

Sir, a final point I wish to raise is the perception within some quarters that this Bill unnecessarily shifts the burden of responsibility on to the shoulders of building owners. With the appointment of Fire Safety Managers, it is foreseen that the building management, in particular, the Fire Safety Managers, will be subjected to a lot of questioning in the event that there are heavy casualties resulting from a fire outbreak. As for me, I am clear as to what the Bill is designed for, and would appreciate the Minister's comments on this matter.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, first of all, I welcome the support of Mr Zulkifli. What I need to respond to is his questions on Fire Safety Managers (FSMs).

First, his concern that there is some anxiety. Actually, the course is about 2-3 months. When I was briefed on it by my officials, I recall that it is not a difficult course. In fact, the pass rate is more than 95%. So the persons who did not make it constituted a very small number. In any case, this small number of people who did not pass will be given a second chance to sit for the test again. So let me assure him that the Civil Defence Fire Safety Bureau will not take such a rigid approach in implementing this measure. As I said, the pass rate is very high and I am told that more than 90% of the buildings which are to be covered in the initial phases of the Fire Safety Management System already have such Fire Safety Managers trained to take up the job.

His second point is that because many of these persons to be appointed as Fire Safety Managers are in fact also doubling up in other capacities, such as security officers and so on, and since they will not be confronted with actual situations, I gather his point is that they may not be as sharp in the duties expected of them. I do not think this is so because even if a real fire does not occur in the premises where they are working, there will be enough expected of them as Fire Safety Managers, for example, they will have to give an annual report to the Fire Safety Bureau on what they have done in the building, what is the training given to the staff, what is the status of the checks on fire safety equipment, fire protection system, and whether they have any fire drills and so on. In the case of a Fire Safety Manager who does not give such a report or gives a report saying that nothing was done, then I would expect the Fire Safety Bureau of the Civil Defence to look at it as a warning bell and to find out what is going on. Although it is true that the FSMs will be doing other work, it is not true that their role as a Fire Safety Manager will become so mundane and with so few responsibilities that they will not be taking the job seriously.

Thirdly, I do not agree that this Bill is to shift the responsibility of the Fire Safety Bureau of the Civil Defence. In other words, passing the buck, so to speak. Yes, we do want to involve others in the prevention of fire hazard and to prevent a major towering inferno situation. We want to involve the developer who is developing a building. We want to involve the management of a highrise building after the building is built. We want to involve everyone who works in it, whether he is a manager, a secretary, a clerk or a typist. Because if a building is built and has met all the specifications, a year later, when you have moved in the furniture, equipment, curtains, drapes, and the management, residents and workers of that building do not play their part, then the role of the Fire Safety Bureau and Civil Defence is really to come and put out the fire. Our approach is, let us not wait to put out the fire. Let us prevent the fire from starting out in the first place. In order to do that, you must involve those who are residing in the building and are responsible for its management. I do not think, in all fairness, that it can be said to be shifting the burden of the Fire Safety Bureau. It is to involve the community and the owners and managers of the building. If we do not do that, and if I did not introduce this Bill, then Government will be failing in its duty.

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. S. Jayakumar].

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