ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.51 pm

The Acting Minister for the Environment (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans today enjoy a very high standard of public health. The incidence of communicable diseases is low and under control, despite the fact that Singapore is situated in a region where many tropical diseases are endemic. Refuse is collected daily; food is safe; and our streets are swept regularly. We have come a long way from the days when our streets were polluted with rubbish, our waterways exuded the odour of decomposed wastes and our air was polluted and dusty. Much hard work has gone into making our city clean and green: careful planning, many years of public education and cooperation from civic-minded members of the public, and strict enforcement of environmental legislation have all helped to achieve the present high quality of our environment.

To keep up with the rising public demand for a better environment and the need to address emerging concerns, my Ministry has from time to time amended the Environmental Public Health Act which was first enacted in 1969. The Act was last amended in 1992. We are now, once again, proposing that the Environmental Public Health Act be amended to prepare us for the challenges of the next century.

One key issue we need to address is solid waste or refuse management. We have two factors working against us - a tight labour situation and a scarcity of land. Both of these make it costly for us to deal with increasing quantities of solid waste. And the quantity of solid waste that is being generated as Singapore becomes more affluent is growing. The quantity of refuse that has to be collected and disposed of has increased from 2,138 tonnes per day in 1975 to 4,105 tonnes per day in 1985 and 7,268 tonnes per day in 1995, almost doubling every 10 years.

An effective system for refuse collection and disposal is critical to the standard of public health and the quality of the environment in any country. A poorly managed system will result in a rapid deterioration of public health standards, giving rise to all sorts of health hazards. This is especially so in countries located in the tropics where the heat and humidity accelerates the decomposition of wastes; and particularly so in countries that are highly urbanised and densely populated, as in the case of Singapore.

The task of maintaining an efficient system of solid waste management in Singapore will be very difficult in the future unless we make changes now to deal with the problems ahead.

Corporatising Solid Waste Collection and Introducing Competition

The refuse collection service provided by my Ministry to domestic and trade premises today will be faced with a manpower shortage problem in the near future. About 45% of our workmen are over the age of 50. We are also facing difficulties recruiting new workers to work as refuse collectors. We need to make changes now to solve this problem. We need to restructure the work content, improve productivity and implement more responsive and market oriented schemes for remuneration and service conditions which will reward higher productivity. But flexible shifts and remuneration structures cannot be implemented in the current system without civil service-wide implications.

While my Ministry is always searching for new ways to manage solid waste more efficiently and thereby keep costs down, in the longer term, the better way to encourage greater efficiency at the system level is to introduce competition into the area of refuse management.

To achieve the objectives of higher efficiency and keeping costs down, my Ministry will be taking a number of steps. We will corporatise the Ministry's refuse collection unit on 1st April 1996 so that it can operate as a company and function with greater flexibility. In three years, by the year 1999, we will allow private waste collectors to come into the market to compete for the collection of refuse from domestic and trade premises. The Act will be amended to allow for this change in system and to include provisions to ensure that the collection of refuse from domestic and trade premises will be done in an orderly and organised manner.

Dangerous Waste and Illegal Dumping

The law will also be amended to make those who generate or are in possession of wastes that are dangerous fully responsible for the proper disposal of such wastes. Those who behave irresponsibly or those who dispose of such wastes illegally will be dealt with severely.

Currently, the Act already regulates the disposal of toxic wastes. The Bill seeks to regulate the disposal of a new group of dangerous substances, such as petroleum products and explosives.

Generators of these dangerous substances will be required to treat these wastes before sending them for disposal. If they contract out the collection and treatment of these wastes, they are responsible to ensure that the contractors are fully aware of the nature of the wastes. The contractors who receive these wastes for treatment will also be responsible to ensure that these wastes are properly treated and disposed of. The appropriate Regulations and Code of Practice will be drafted to spell out the details.

The Bill will also provide for stiffer penalties for those convicted of illegal dumping. The number of cases of illegal dumping detected has increased from 59 in 1993 to 105 in the first nine months of 1995. Of these, we managed to prosecute 34 cases in 1994 and 35 so far in 1995. These unscrupulous people who dump their wastes illegally often do so to avoid paying disposal fees. Their actions are totally irresponsible and they can do very serious harm to our environment and endanger the health of our people. 41.2% of our land area is used as water catchments for drinking water and, if left unchecked, illegal dumping can pollute our very precious water resources.

It is not easy to catch those who dump waste illegally in the act; but when we do, we want to come down hard on them. The existing penalty is clearly not effective enough to deter them. We will, therefore, increase the maximum fine and include a jail sentence which can be imposed on a first-time offender. For a repeat offender, we will introduce a mandatory jail sentence.

Private Waste Disposal Facilities

The third amendment that will be made to the Environmental Public Health Act will be a provision to allow for the setting up of private waste disposal facilities some time in the future. This will allow the Government to privatise the provision of such facilities in the future.

Littering

The fourth and final major amendment will deal with the problem of littering. To assist my Ministry in the enforcement against littering, we will amend the Act to allow bus drivers, conductors and ticket inspectors to enforce against those who litter in public service buses.

Unfortunately, even after decades of education, enforcement action is still required to deter and remind the minority of Singaporeans who still litter that littering is an anti-social act. My Ministry does not have the manpower to deploy officers everywhere, nor should we be spending so much public funds to employ large numbers of enforcement officers to stamp out littering. We are grateful that the public bus companies are willing to assist us in our endeavours. This is the right spirit. Keeping Singapore clean is everyone's responsibility.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I would like to reaffirm my Ministry's commitment to protecting the environment and ensuring that the public continues to enjoy a high standard of public health. The amendments proposed in the Environmental Public Health Bill are necessary to prepare us to meet the future challenges.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, privatisation of refuse collection service has its pros and cons. With privatisation, it is hoped that service can be provided more efficiently because of competition. But at the same time, there is also a danger that the private contractor may default and fail to perform the required level of service. This is possible because even a large contractor may find it difficult to hire workers to do this kind of job. It happens in the construction industry and some contractors in that industry resort to hiring of illegal workers. And when Government clamped down on them, they simply defaulted and could not proceed with the job. We should not let this happen when we privatise refuse collection service because it is an essential service. The Commissioner of Public Health should ensure that the licensed waste collector must have enough workers and that these workers are all legitimate workers. He should also have a contingency plan to take over the job should any contractor default.

When the service is privatised, collection charges would have to reflect market conditions. Whether or not they will be higher than the current fees would depend on whether there is presently a subsidy in the fees that Government charges. Perhaps the Minister should let us know what the current situation is. Does he foresee an increase in the fees and how is he going to control the increases? I assume that he is not going to leave it entirely to market forces because in clause 13 of the Bill, it has provided that the Commissioner can regulate the charge to be levied by the licensee. I propose that when a public tender is called, a cap should be specified so that no tender should exceed this maximum charge.

Sir, as the cost of collection reflects more and more the market condition, there should be a shift towards charging according to the actual quantities of refuse collected. This means that those who throw away more refuse should pay more. It is a fair principle. As the Ministry is corporatising its refuse collection department, may I know whether it plans to implement this principle of charging.

Sir, in view of the problem of employing workers to do refuse collection, there is a need to increase mechanization. The Government should therefore take a national approach and see if the design of our housing flats, buildings, compounds and even our streets can be improved to facilitate more and newer forms of mechanization to cut down our reliance on manpower.

Sir, I also support the amendment to section 110A to empower the Commissioner to authorise any operator of a public service vehicle to enforce the Act. I would even ask the Minister to go further and empower the Commissioner to authorise any responsible residents to enforce the littering law within the estate they live in. Since the remark by the Prime Minister in February this year exhorting Singaporeans not to litter and negate the HDB upgrading effort, and the subsequent debates in this House on littering, a lot of campaigns and publicity have been generated by the Environment Ministry and the media on the problems of littering. I sense that more and more Singaporeans are now prepared to speak up against littering when they see someone doing it. I have some residents coming to my meet-the-people session and requesting that they be empowered by the Environment Ministry to take enforcement action against littering. This is heartening and I think the Minister should give this proposition his serious thought.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill. The focus of the Bill is on the preparation for the privatisation of waste and refuse collection and disposal services.

I suppose privatisation is an inevitable trend. My concern is that householders may have to pay needlessly more for their rubbish to be collected. It is clear from the Bill that the Government has no intention of corporatising the Environmental Public Health Division in the Ministry. Clauses 3, 9 and 13 of the Bill envisage a more likely situation of a number of private waste collectors taking over the Ministry's waste and refuse collection and disposal services.

Sir, my concern is that the private waste collectors would incur an extra cost that the Ministry presently does not bear in rendering the same services. The proposed new section 23(4) in clause 9 and the proposed new section 31(5) in clause 13 state that the Ministry may impose a payment or payments on waste facility operators and waste collectors. If these payments are imposed and are substantial, the householders and other end-users of these services would be footing the bill. If these payments are extraneous, they seem to be a new form of indirect taxation. Clarification of the purpose of these payments is badly needed here.

Another alarming feature of the Bill is that it does away with the present nation-wide scale of fees for waste collection or disposal. Under the proposed new section 23(3) and (5)(c) in clause 9 and the proposed new section 31(4) and (6)(d) in clause 13, the licensees may have to obtain their licences by public tender and will fix the fees payable by the end-users. In the light of the recent Government statement that the public must pay a realistic price for the services they use, householders will most likely pay different rates of charges for refuse collection services, depending on where they live. When two householders occupying comparable premises within a shouting distance of each other may have to pay different rates for the same services, it would be an anomalous, if not invidious, situation.

Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill delete the reference to "nightsoil" in the principal Act. I am not sure how this deletion affects the portable toilets that are conveniently available at the Padang during National Day parades, Chinese funeral wakes and other outdoor functions. I am sure these portable toilets must from time to time contain a bit of nightsoil. I am also equally sure that the Government does not intend to let this occasional bit of nightsoil be transported about without any control. Regardless of whatever statutory provision governs these portable toilets, my point is that the explanation given for the repeal of section 13 of the Act, ie, "nightsoil collection is no longer carried out", completely ignores the importunate call of nature.

Sir, another provision of the Bill, ie, clause 17 amending section 110A of the Act, also needs to be clarified, as far as I am concerned. The intention to empower an operator of a public service vehicle to enforce the law against littering is commendable. But I am not too sure how this commendable operator is expected to enforce the law? "Operator" here must usually mean the driver, as practically all public service buses are operated by drivers alone. Buses with conductors normally ferry kindergarten school children. I do not think the Government intends to throw the law book at these toddlers even before they know how to read it. Ticket inspectors are random birds of passage on buses.

Sir, my point is that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for bus drivers to prevent littering. It would be scary if the bus drivers are to keep one eye on the road and the other eye on the passengers behind them all the time they are driving. Even assuming some bus drivers have superhuman vision to see through the peak-hour crush of passengers and catch a passenger littering in their bus, what are the drivers to do about it? Bring the bus to an emergency stop wherever it is, and quickly rush to the back of the bus to apprehend the culprit? Or drive the bus with all the passengers to the nearest neighbourhood police post?

Sir, I am not being negative or frivolous about this particular amendment. I know littering is a perennial problem, as the other Members in this House can vouch from their own town council experience. But I do not think an impractical solution will help to deal with the problem. It may be more effective, though costly, to employ more professional litterbug-catchers. It may also be more effective, if administratively inconvenient, to make the Corrective Work Orders fit the crime, eg, by making litterbugs in buses clean the buses during the graveyard shift in bus depots. Alternatively, the convicted litterbugs may be made to sweep bus terminuses or bus stops at peak periods.

Sir, other than the comments I have just made, I am in favour of the Bill.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me thank Dr John Chen and Mr Chin Harn Tong for the great interest they have shown on this subject, in particular, specific aspects of the subject which I did not expect would attract so much interest.

Both Dr John Chen and Mr Chin have expressed concern about costs and whether there are subsidies in the system today, and whether corporatisation will result in an increase in costs. Currently, my Ministry charges rates which are sufficient to cover our operating cost and the capital cost based on the Government's system of accounting. So I do not expect that as a result of corporatisation alone that costs will rise. But I would like to bring to the attention of this House that costs for managing solid waste will be expected to rise in the future for a number of reasons. The first reason is simply that households are generating more waste year by year and therefore the cost of disposing and collecting this waste from each household can be expected to increase.

Secondly, the cost of managing the waste will increase. There are basically two components. One is the operating cost and the other is the infrastructural cost. The operating cost depends very critically on the availability of manpower and how much we have to pay for labour. And this, as Members know, is in short supply in Singapore and is becoming more expensive.

The second aspect is the infrastructural cost. Members are aware that we are building in Pulau Semakau an offshore landfill and this will incur a cost of $1.2 billion to be spent over the next five years. This will replace the current landfill site in Lorong Halus which is being priced on an historical basis. For $1.2 billion, this site will last us perhaps 30-40 years if we keep the waste low but it still has to be paid for.

At the rate at which we continue to increase the amount of waste being generated in Singapore, we will also have to build one new incinerator plant in approximately every five years. An incinerator plant to deal with 3,000 tonnes of rubbish per day costs about $1 billion to build. Currently, we are operating three plants which are slightly smaller in scale but we will soon be investing in our fourth plant. So costs like these have to be covered when we are talking about managing solid waste and costs will rise if we do not minimise the waste and if we do not carry out waste management efficiently. Corporatisation will help us to do this efficiently. Competition will give the extra edge, the extra pressure, to keep costs low.

Dr John Chen also raised the question of mechanisation for collecting solid waste. We have done this. In our new public housing estates, for example, there are centralised refuse chutes and we no longer require workers to take the refuse from the refuse chutes to the central bin centres. In fact, what happens now is that my Ministry's collection vehicles can drive right to the central refuse chutes and there is an automatic transfer from the central refuse chutes to the waste collection vehicles. And this has helped to reduce the amount of manpower. We will continue to explore other such possibilities. But, of course, we also need public cooperation, especially in the private housing estates, the landed properties, where if each household does a little bit more to help either package or place the waste in a convenient way, it will help my Ministry's public service workers to collect the waste more quickly and more efficiently.

Dr Chen also asked about empowering residents to enforce anti-littering laws. I would encourage residents to take an interest in the cleanliness of their neighbourhoods and to advise those who are living there and who continue to litter to stop doing so. But my Ministry will have to look very carefully before we go on a widespread scheme of empowering residents to enforce anti-littering laws, and this is something which I think we will do rather slowly. We will do it step by step. We will empower those who are already in some position of authority, eg, bus drivers, conductors and ticket inspectors.

Mr Chin Harn Tong raised a concern on the same subject about how the driver of a one-man operated bus can be expected to enforce the anti-littering laws. Sir, I would expect that the bus drivers must continue to concentrate on their primary duty which is to drive the bus safely. However, the fact that the bus driver can book a littering offender will be a strong deterrent for anyone who thinks about littering in a bus. And I am sure that the bus driver will have no difficulty in picking out blatant cases of littering and this alone will help to reduce the amount of littering in buses. We cannot, of course, expect a complete solution.

Mr Chin Harn Tong also raised some concerns about licence fees which may be charged to those companies which bid for waste management. I can assure Mr Chin that we will consider his proposals. His concerns are valid ones. And when we devise the scheme, we will make sure that we do not load unnecessary extra costs into the system. We are going to corporatise my Ministry's solid waste management department in 1996 and we will take about three years to work through the system before we go for open competition.

Mr Chin was also concerned about different charges being levied on households which may be in shouting distance of each other, as he put it. Yes, when competition is introduced in 1999 or the year 2000, the possibility will arise that different areas adjacent to each other may well be charged slightly different rates. But we do not expect that there will be wide variations. For example, town councils today have differential rates for service and conservancy charges but they do not vary very widely. The key point is that if the rates are different, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Because the competitive pressures will help to keep the cost down. It will allow us to select the most cost-effective, the most cost-efficient, operator to provide the service.

Mr Chin also expressed some concern about nightsoil collection. The reason for deleting this from the Act is that my Ministry has stopped collecting nightsoil since the mid-80s. We stopped when the service was terminated. We did so, I am told, with some fanfare. There was a small ceremony and the last bucket is on display in my Ministry. Members are welcome to inspect it if they wish.

Basically, we are no longer providing the service. The provisions in the Act are no longer necessary. And those who provide portable toilets on the Padang and elsewhere provide a total service, and that includes bringing the waste to the proper treatment facility. So there is no longer any requirement for this provision in the Act.

Sir, I believe I have answered the main points that have been brought up by both Dr Chen and Mr Chin.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, the Minister has not addressed my concern about the possibility of private refuse collectors defaulting. It is a distinct possibility and we see it happening in other industries. So we cannot afford this sort of thing to happen in this service. The other matter is about charging according to the quantities collected.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: My apologies to Dr John Chen for not having addressed these two issues.

Sir, today 47% of the solid waste generated in Singapore is collected by private operators. I think Members may not be aware of this. My Ministry collects 53% of the solid waste generated and this comes mainly from domestic and trade premises. Private collectors collect 47% of the solid waste generated from industrial and commercial premises. So there are already private operators who have the skill and ability to operate at quite a large scale. We have the confidence that given two or three years' lead time these larger private collectors in particular would be able to gear themselves up to provide the service. Because there are quite a number of large private collectors, we believe that when we do open this up for competition and privatise it, there will be sufficient alternatives available in the event that a private collector is unable to provide the level of service required or he defaults. We will also provide sufficient guidelines, measurement of quality, service standards and so forth when we put up the operation for tender.

Dr John Chen has raised a very valid point, which is collecting by volume. This is something which my Ministry fully supports. Today, we charge a flat fee for collecting refuse from households and apartments - $20 per month for households and $8 per month for apartments regardless of the volume of refuse that is generated. What Dr John Chen has proposed is a good idea. My Ministry is, in fact, studying this to see how we can move from a flat fee system to a system where those who generate more waste bear the responsibility for paying a higher cost for that greater amount of waste to be managed and treated. This may include a charging and rebate system for town councils and a paid bag system for private housing. My Ministry is studying this and at the appropriate time we will put forward this proposal.

On the subject of cost of waste management, I would also like to make a point that we have to charge the correct economic cost for waste disposal. Otherwise, that will be tantamount to subsidising waste generation. If we charge too low for waste disposal, what it actually means is that it costs you very little to throw something away. In fact, this might well encourage people to throw more things away which they might otherwise re-use or re-cycle. So it is important to charge the appropriate economic cost for waste disposal, otherwise we will be inadvertently subsidising waste disposal and disadvantaging those who are setting up recycling plants or those who are carrying out waste minimisation efforts.

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. - [RAdm Teo Chee Hean].

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