CONTROL OF VECTORS AND PESTICIDES BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 2.52 pm

The Minister for the Environment (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Bill is a comprehensive legislation that will deal with both insect and non-insect vectors. It will replace the Destruction of Disease-Bearing Insects Act (Chapter 79), which was enacted in 1968.

The Bill seeks to consolidate and reform the law relating to the destruction of vectors and the control of vector-borne diseases, and has new provisions for:

(i) the registration, licensing and certification of persons engaged in vector control work; and

(ii) the control of the sale and use of pesticides and vector repellents.

Sir, the introduction of this Bill is timely as we are seeing a resurgence of vector-borne diseases, not only in Singapore, but in the whole of Southeast Asia and many other parts of the world. Vector-borne diseases are dangerous diseases that can result in human suffering and even deaths. My Ministry is committed to protecting our population from such diseases.

The task, however, of preventing outbreaks of vector-borne diseases is a mammoth one. Its success will depend very much on effort by the community - from home occupants, work-site contractors, estate managers and just about everyone who owns, manages or occupies a property.

In the case of dengue fever, for example, my Ministry has over the years been educating the public on ways in which they can prevent the Aedes mosquito from breeding in their premises. Surveys have shown that the public has understood what needs to be done. Many do in fact make the effort to regularly and carefully check their homes and compounds. However, I have to point out that even if 95% of the homeowners in the neighbourhood have done their part, dengue outbreaks can still occur if the remaining 5% take an indifferent attitude and allow Aedes to breed in their homes.

I am sure that Members will agree that it is really unfair to the majority who are doing the right thing, but still stand the risk of being infected with dengue, just because a few of their neighbours choose not to do anything or remain careless. The Bill will provide for greater punitive measures against this minority group who, by being indifferent, endanger the lives of others.

Sir, more and more chemicals and formulations are being introduced into the market as pesticides and insecticides for vector control. Some of these can be potentially hazardous to the users, as well as to the public, if they are not handled or applied carefully. With greater emphasis given to vector control, there is a need to ensure that the people using and applying these chemicals know what to do and how to prevent harm to themselves and to the public. Also, we need to ensure that pesticides, especially those used in formulated household insecticides, do not contain active ingredients that are dangerous to people. For these reasons, the Bill will have provisions to address the professionalism of the pest control industry and to the sale of pesticides and repellents.

There are today about 110 pest control companies operating in Singapore. They employ about 2,000 employees, half of whom are supervisors and the other half unskilled or semi-skilled workers. Of the 1,000 or so supervisors, only about 20% have undergone classroom training conducted by the Pest Control Association and some of the larger pest control companies. The others learn the trade as they go along.

We need to formalise the training to ensure that all those in the trade are properly trained. The Bill therefore has provisions requiring supervisors and workers to undergo training courses conducted by my Ministry or by accredited training centres. Thereafter, they will sit for examinations set by my Ministry. Only when they have been trained and have passed the examinations will they be licensed as either qualified technicians or pest control workers.

A grace period of nine months will be given to those already in the trade to attend the appropriate training courses and to sit for the examinations. In the interim, they can continue to work and will hold a provisional licence or certificate as the case may be. This window period is necessary and fair as the industry cannot come to a standstill in the interim period.

Through the training and licensing scheme, my Ministry aims to raise the level of competence and professionalism of the pest control industry. Only when the people in the industry are knowledgeable and highly skilled, can we then depend on them to play a bigger and more effective role in vector control.

Sir, I will now highlight some of the other major provisions in this Bill.

To ensure that the public's safety is protected, the Bill seeks to control the types of pesticides that can be used in vector control and to specify the approved active ingredient and their maximum permissible levels. Only those that are approved for use will be registered.

Clauses 6, 8 and 9 of the Bill will require all pesticides used for vector control and all vector repellents to be registered before they can be sold in the market. The product has to be sold in a container or packaged with an approved label and carries the registration mark.

Clause 12 empowers my Ministry to order the recall of stock and cease the sale of registered pesticides, if deemed necessary.

Clause 20 empowers my Ministry to take samples of pesticides for analyses and the stock can be seized or sealed if the analyses show that the provisions of the Bill have been contravened.

Contravention of any part of the Bill pertaining to the control of pesticides and repellents will incur a maximum fine of $20,000 and/or 3 months jail for the first offence and $50,000 and/or 6 months jail for the second and subsequent offence.

Sir, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, we need to come down hard on those who are irresponsible and cause mosquitoes to breed in their premises. The penalties for the breeding of vectors will be increased with this Bill.

Under clause 16, the occupier or owner of a construction site or workplace which breeds vectors will be liable to a maximum fine of $5,000, and/or 3 months' jail sentence for the first offence. Second or subsequent offences will incur a maximum fine of $10,000 and/or 6 months' jail sentence. If he ignores our advice and continuously fails to eradicate the breeding places in his premises, he will be served with an Order under clause 18. The Order, other than requiring him to eradicate the breeding grounds, may require him to engage a registered vector control operator or licensed vector control technician to carry out the vector control work and, in appropriate cases, to stop work for such period until the breeding habitats are eradicated.

Under clause 24(a), failure to comply with the Order may render him liable to a maximum fine of $20,000 and/or 3 months' jail for the first offence and $50,000 fine and/or 6 months' jail for the second or subsequent offence.

Under clause 49, in cases where the offence is committed by a body corporate, a partnership or an unincorporated association of person, the director, manager, partner, secretary or other similar officer of such bodies may be charged for the offence if it was committed with his consent or connivance or if he had failed to exercise all diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. This will enable us to hold management accountable for the unsatisfactory conditions of the premises under its control.

Although the Bill does not differentiate between work-sites and domestic premises, my ministry intends to offer the occupier or owner of domestic premises where breeding of vectors is found a composition fine instead of charging them in court straightaway. Under the Bill, offences may be compounded to a sum not exceeding $5,000. The current composition fine for homeowners is $100. We will increase this amount to $200 to increase its deterrent value.

Sir, Part V of the Bill deals with the registration, licensing and certification of pest control companies, technicians and workers respectively.

As I mentioned earlier, with these provisions, the pest control industry will be regulated. Clauses 25 and 28 will require any company in the business of vector control to be registered with my Ministry as a vector control operator. A registered vector control operator must engage only licensed vector control technicians and certified vector control workers to do vector control work.

Under clauses 26, 27 and 29 of the Bill, no person is allowed to carry out vector control work unless he is licensed as a vector control technician or certified as a vector control worker. Only certified workers are allowed to assist and work under the supervision of licensed technicians in carrying out vector control work.

Clause 32 provides for the registration, licence or certificate to be cancelled, if the person who is registered, licensed or certified contravenes the provisions of the Bill, fails to comply with conditions imposed or directions given to him, or has obtained the registration, licence and certificate by fraud or cheating.

Under clause 35, the maximum penalty for offences under this Part will be $20,000 and/or 3 months' jail for the first offence and $50,000 and/or 6 months' jail for the second or subsequent offence.

The Bill deals with the broad principles and requirements on the control of vectors and pesticides. Specific and detailed regulatory requirements will be made under regulations as provided for under clause 60 of the Bill.

Sir, this Bill enables my Ministry to deal with the resurgence of vector-borne diseases more effectively and better protect our population from outbreaks of these diseases.

My Ministry has sought the views and inputs of the private sector during the preparation of the Bill. They have given their general support to the Bill.

The Destruction of the Disease-Bearing Insects Act (Chapter 79) will be repealed when this Bill is enacted.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

A local newspaper recently reported that, in Hong Kong, a dog died and three members of a family suffered from illnesses resulting from ignorance in the use of a tick control pesticide. This is a good example to show how dangerous vector repellents and pesticides are. Most of the chemicals used in vector repellents and pesticides are lethal to insects and smaller creatures. They are equally lethal, with higher dosage, to people, especially the aged and young people. Therefore, it is important that the people who handle such chemicals require adequate knowledge of the chemicals, the way to handle the chemicals and the possible remedial action if anybody should accidentally come in contact with the chemicals.

I welcome the Bill, which is a comprehensive one, that deals with the possession and subsequent application of such chemicals. The Bill ensures that all operators, technicians and workers dealing with the sale and application of the chemicals to be registered. This will reduce the possibility of mishandling of the chemicals by lay persons which could affect the health of the public.

I would like to cite a personal encounter with a pest control company which came to my home for the treatment of termites. The workers from the company drilled holes on the wooden window frame and squeezed a bluish powder into the holes. After their work, those holes were left exposed and the powder could be easily accessible by ignorant young children. In my view, the bluish powder is toxic and could cause problems to young children when they come into contact with it. This is a very bad pest control practice and could only be due to the ignorance of the workers or irresponsibility of the person doing the job.

By registering them, perhaps such errant pest controllers could be eradicated from the market and only those with the appropriate knowledge will be allowed to operate.

However, I notice that the operators, technicians and workers could be given provisional certificates or licences pending the acquisition of certain prescribed qualifications. I think this provision is too generous and it may lead to unqualified operators, technicians or workers continuing to practise without a qualified licence or certificate. It will undermine the spirit of the Bill. I hope the Minister will clarify the conditions and how long the provisional licences would be issued.

The Bill states that the certificate would last for three years and is renewable. I personally feel that this is too lenient in comparison with the Professional Engineers Act, which grants university trained professional engineers with only a one-year practising licence. On what ground are the pest control technicians and workers, who would any time endanger public health, granted a three-year permit? May I request the Minister to justify why a pest control licence is not issued on an annual basis, just like the Profession Engineers Act.

The Bill does not spell out precisely in what way the licence could be revoked. We must continuously emphasise and remind all pest control licence holders that their licences could be revoked if they do not comply with the code of good conduct pertaining to their practice. Could the Minister also clarify this matter?

In clause 35, the penalty for the operators, technicians and workers is grouped into one category if they should break the law. The maximum fine is $20,000 and three months' jail for a first time offender. In my view, the penalty for the operator should be made more severe compared with that of the worker. Could the Minister enlighten the House on this matter?

In clause 18(4), it is mentioned specifically about the levelling of the ground to prevent vector breeding. I think it may be difficult for the construction site to comply with this particular clause because of the size of the land and the movement of heavy vehicles. It will be very costly to comply with this requirement. However, effort must be put in to ensure that it is free from vector breeding. Could the Minister elaborate on how the Ministry intends to deal with construction site, in particular, compliance with this sub clause?

On the definition of vector breeding, I personally feel that it is a very important issue for the officer to judge whether the owner of the premises had violated the regulation. Take a simple example that a house owner checks and clears all the possible breeding areas on a weekly basis, like clearing the tray under a flower pot. I am sure from the day the trapped water is cleared until the following week before the next check takes place, rain water could be collected and a few mosquito larvae could be growing. Before the larva is turned into a mosquito, within a week it will be cleared and there should be no mosquito breeding. Unfortunately, nearer the date of checking, the Environment officer will come and find a few tiny larvae in the tray of a flower pot. The owner of the house will then be summoned for breeding mosquitoes. In my view, a situation like this is arguable, and I hope the Minister could make it clear whether a situation which I have described is considered to be breeding mosquitoes and therefore in violation of the provision of the Bill.

Clause 20 looks like it is unrelated to the Bill. Could the Minister explain why one should not remove any vegetation within six metres of any pond or stream?

Do you know that chemicals used as vector repellents and pesticides could endanger lives if they are stolen or accidentally discharged into the atmosphere or watercourse? This could happen as a result of a leak caused by the impact during transportation or fire or flood in the premises storing the chemicals. May I ask why the transportation and storage of such potentially hazardous chemicals are not part of the Bill? Could the Minister explain?

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Lily Neo (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Bill.

There have been instances, too often before, of offenders of mosquito breeding sites taking fines too lightly and ignoring warnings. Recalcitrant offenders were flouting the laws in the maintenance of mosquito breeding grounds, especially on construction sites. This had caused a lot of inconvenience and annoyance to the dwellers around the mosquito breeding grounds. But, more importantly, of course, this had facilitated the spread of dengue haemorrhagic fever which had caused quite a number of fatalities. Hopefully, this Bill will bring down the rising numbers of dengue haemorrhagic fever from a high of 4,300 cases last year.

Sir, I would like to commend the following changes that this Bill brings. Under this Bill, first offenders face fines of up to $5,000 (five times more than the current $1,000) although jail sentences remain the same at not exceeding three months. Repeat offenders face fines of up to $10,000 (increased from the current maximum of $2,000) and jail sentences not exceeding six months. The judge can choose to fine or jail the offender, or both. Although offenders who fail to comply with written orders will face unchanged jail terms, there will be stiffer fines of $20,000 (up from the current $1,000). Sir, the stiffer penalties in this Bill should put across the seriousness that must be adopted in this area where negligent behaviour on the part of offenders can cost lives.

Having more quality control over workers in this field, through certification of vector control operators, technicians and workers, is also commendable and is a first step in the right direction. This will involve education, training and examination of certain prescribed tests. There was a survey in 1996 which showed that about half of the 2,000 or so workers in vector control would be field operatives, and almost a third of these field operatives would have had only primary education and would also be inclined to be older workers. Many in this group have been in their job for years and could neither read nor write. These workers, therefore, may have problems in going back to learn and to pass tests. Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest that rather than denying this group of their livelihood, courses conducted in their own dialects and oral, rather than written, examinations should be arranged for them.

We all know that public education is the key to achieve successful vector control. Sir, I know that the Ministry has put in a lot of effort in this respect. However, more can be done at those locations where the incidence of dengue haemorrhagic fever is especially high. Door-to-door handing out of pamphlets with advice and instructions will be useful. Instead of fines alone, households with breeding sites should be given help to solve their individual specific problems. A list of certified vector control operators registered with the Ministry of the Environment should be made available and given to the public when the certification of operators has been put in place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are inadequacies, however, in this Bill and I would like to see some addenda made in dealing with several issues. I would like to suggest that we look at these three issues:

First, protection of the vector control operators and technicians. There is no provision in this Bill for the protection of workers from the harmful effects of chemicals found in insecticides. There are many pesticidal chemicals that cause acute or chronic toxicity in humans. Some commonly used chemicals found in pesticides are (1) organophosphates, (2) halogenated hydrocarbons, and (3) pyrethroids. All of these can be rather toxic, if misused.

Organophosphates poisoning can cause convulsions, paralysis, cardio-respiratory depression and coma. Death is usually due to cardio-respiratory failure. A fair number of organophosphate compounds are capable of inducing delayed neurotoxicity, resulting in the clinical manifestations of sensory disturbance, ataxia, muscle twitching and weakness, and in severe cases, complete flaccid paralysis. Halogenated hydrocarbons can cause neurotoxicity with manifestations of weakness, paraesthesia and myotonia as well as suppression of immuno-responses. Pyrethroids are the safest of the three chemicals mentioned. Still, they can cause acute toxicity resulting in tremor, profused salivation and clonic or tonic seizures. There are also reports of organophosphates and halogenated hydrocarbons having carcinogenic effects in experimental animals.

In view of the significant toxicity of the pesticides, workers in this area should have regular medical examinations. In fact, exposure to organophosphates is under section 69 of the Factories Act (Chapter 104). Factory workers exposed to this substance must have compulsory and regular examinations. I strongly feel that workers in vector and pesticide control should get the same protection as those workers in the factories. There should not be double standards of protection when both workers are exposed to similar toxic substances.

Second, compulsory use of protective gear. There is no mention in this Bill on the use of protective gear by field operatives. Appropriate clothing, masks, gloves, goggles and so on should be advocated. Preventive measures are very important when dealing with toxic chemical insecticides. Educate workers on the harmful effects of these substances and on the proper ways of handling them. Make the use of protective gear compulsory for these workers. Abate the possibility of trading the safety of workers for the monetary savings that some companies or individuals consider as priorities.

Third, setting up of a Review Committee. There should be a permanent Review Committee that can continuously assess the permissible amounts of active ingredients used in the pesticides in Singapore. The Committee should access continuing research and current information to determine the safer chemicals in the markets. It must make necessary adjustments and aim to substitute more harmful substances with lesser ones. Even more importantly, it must be alert and ready to abolish the use of seriously toxic or proven carcinogenic substances from the market.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since independence, Singapore has made remarkable achievements in housing, environmental development and other areas. We enjoy the reputation of being a "Garden City". Every year, we have been attracting millions of tourists to this Garden City, and this must be attributed to the good comprehensive planning of the various Government agencies and the cooperation of the people. It is something that has been achieved by all of them through their cooperation. Therefore, we must step up our efforts to preserve our beautiful environment, and to maintain our "Garden City" reputation.

However, according to the report of the Ministry of the Environment, last year, more than 17,000 cases of mosquito breeding were detected. In the first four months of this year, the number of dengue haemorrhagic fever cases has risen to 1,786. In this beautiful Garden City of Singapore where a high standard of hygiene is maintained, so many of these cases were detected. I think this is certainly something that warrants our attention and concern.

In order to further control vector breeding, the Ministry of the Environment is moving this Amendment Bill to deal sternly with people responsible for vector breeding in order to preserve our hygienic environment. Under the new Bill, anyone found to be responsible for breeding mosquitoes in construction sites, premises, ships and even in the cabins of aeroplanes may be faced with a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both.

In order to preserve and protect the health of the people of Singapore and the reputation that we have in the world as a Garden City, I support this Amendment Bill. But to make sure that the new Act can be more effectively implemented, I would like to make three suggestions.

Firstly, the work of vector control should be done comprehensively. In other words, the possible places and sites of vector breeding should be embodied in the ambit of the Act, so that the various Government agencies will be better able to control the breeding places. I find that in the new Amendment Bill, the parks and undeveloped vacant land have not been included. Mr Speaker, Sir, public parks are places that the public and tourists frequent. In most of our parks and gardens we also have ponds. Wherever there is water, there is an opportunity for mosquitoes to breed. Therefore, we should further control these possible breeding places.

Secondly, vacant lands reserved for future development, especially vacant lands near the Housing and Development Board estates, should be further controlled and managed. There should be regular spraying of insecticides to prevent breeding of mosquitoes. When I went on house-to-house visits of my constituents, many residents told me that a lot of mosquitoes did not come from the HDB flats themselves, but had actually come from undeveloped lands, woods or forests nearby. Therefore, in order to have a better control of these potential breeding places, I think we should consider including these undeveloped vacant lands and public parks in the ambit of this Bill.

Next, we must have a national campaign against mosquitoes. Every citizen has a responsibility to do this, and it is good for everybody. In order to better educate our public and promote their awareness on the possibility of mosquito breeding, I would suggest that the Ministry of the Environment get in touch with the CDCs and the Town Councils, schools, residents, especially the private residents, to start a national campaign against mosquitoes, so that we can eradicate all the possible and potential mosquito breeding places and sites. I think public education is more effective than fines alone.

Thirdly, we must conduct training classes which are open to the public. I am glad to know that the Ministry of the Environment has started training courses for technicians and workers in vector control. But because there are more and more cases being brought to our notice, I hope that the Ministry of the Environment can conduct more courses to train the workers and the technicians so that they may have the professional qualifications and skills to handle vector control work.

Recently, we have been hit by some kind of economic recession and many workers have been retrenched. We can create more job opportunities if the Ministry of the Environment can consider providing training courses for the retrenched workers, so that in this critical time they can have job opportunities. This is like killing two birds with one stone. In order to achieve the objectives of vector control, I hope the Minister will consider my three suggestions.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: First, let me thank the three Members who have spoken in support of this Bill. Dr Low Seow Chay raised quite a few points. His first one was in terms of the provisional certificate. He felt that the nine months for the provisional certificate, as provided under the Bill, is a bit too generous. Sir, we need to provide adequate time for the current group of workers to undergo training and to pass examinations. The nine months, I think, are just about adequate. In fact, in talking to the industry, some of the companies have requested for a longer provisional licence period because, as pointed out by some of the speakers, some of the current crop of workers are not that well educated. So the employers were afraid that even with the nine months, they may not find that the time given to them long enough for them to be trained properly. So the period of nine months, I think, is a good compromise. The industry's work can continue. At the same time, we are giving the current group of workers adequate time to undergo training and to pass examinations. Especially as the last speaker has mentioned, with the poor economic situation, we do not want to put any of these workers unnecessarily out of work either.

He has also mentioned that the issuing of a certificate for three years is a bit too lenient, that even for the engineers they are only issued a one-year licence. I think the effective period of the licence depends very much on the organisation. Many organisations, in fact, are now proceeding to give licences of a longer duration. In fact, for the engineers, unless I am wrong, I think the one-year licence is renewed without any re-testing. So it is just an administrative process of getting them to renew. Similarly, for the workers. Once they are trained properly and have passed the examinations, we will give them a three-year certificate to enable them to carry out their work. But at the same time, there are provisions in the Bill for my Ministry to cancel their licence or certificate if they are found to have contravened the provisions of the Bill. So the safeguards are there. If any of these workers, although they are trained and they know what they are supposed to do, do not comply with the requirements, they will then lose their licence.

He has also asked why all the three groups, ie, the operators, the technicians and the workers, are categorised under the same provision, in terms of penalty. Sir, the penalties, as provided under this Bill, represent the maximum penalty. As to how much of the penalty they will receive it will actually depend on the offences they have committed, the circumstances surrounding the offence and the severity of the offence. It will be very much left to the magistrate hearing the case to decide how big a penalty to impose on them. So if the operator is found to be the one who is responsible, then of course the operator will receive a larger penalty.

He has also asked about the requirements this Bill will pose to the construction companies, in terms of compliance with keeping their sites free of potholes, for example, and all areas which can allow vectors to breed. Sir, the Bill is quite clear in this regard. The owner or operator of a site is required to ensure that the conditions that can lead to the breeding of vectors are totally eradicated. For a construction site, it means that if there are potholes or ponding in certain parts of the site, they have to ensure that that area is levelled up and the potential for vector breeding is eradicated because our primary concern must be for the health and safety of the people. Filling up the potholes does not cost very much. But if the pothole is not filled up and larvae start to breed there, people living near the construction site will then go down with dengue and, worse, some may go down with dengue haemorrhagic fever which can, as Members know, lead to death. So our concern must be for the safety of our people and the cost involved in keeping the site clear of vector breeding potential, I think, is very small in respect of the cost to the population otherwise.

He also asked if a house owner is liable if he has potted plants around and he puts a tray under each potted plant and water collects there and larvae are found on the trays. Sir, again, the Bill is quite unambiguous. Every home owner is responsible for ensuring that the conditions for breeding of vectors are totally eradicated. That is why we have been advising all home owners that if they have potted plants, please remove the trays. If they feel the need to have the tray there, then instead of checking it every week, they should check it every two days. Otherwise the responsibility is still theirs if mosquitoes are found to be breeding in that little pool of water there.

He has asked about clause 20 and he says that it seems to be out of place. Sir, clause 20 is a very specific requirement and it is meant to address the problem of breeding of Anopheles mosquitoes. The Anopheles mosquito is a vector for malaria and this species of mosquito breeds in streams and seepage water and, more importantly, it requires sunlight. Therefore, we have to make sure that where there are streams, running water and seepage water, the undergrowth is not unintentionally cleared away because that will then give greater access to sunlight and increase the potential for Anopheles mosquitoes to breed.

He also asked why the transport and storage of hazardous chemicals are not part of the Bill. Sir, I agree with him that it is important to regulate the transportation and storage of hazardous chemicals. It is under a different Act. It is catered for under the Poisons Act.

Dr Lily Neo also raised a few suggestions. Her first suggestion is that since the workers in this industry tend to be not very well educated, perhaps, the training courses should be in dialects and, as far as possible, the examination should not be in written form. Sir, in fact we do intend to conduct training courses, not just in dialects, but also in Malay. Also, most of the questions would be in the form of multiple choice answers to make it simpler for the workers and, where appropriate, pictures will be used instead. So this will make it much easier for us to test the understanding of the workers. Our key priority is to make sure that the workers understand the danger of what they are handling, how to protect themselves and, more importantly, how to protect the general public who are living in the midst of where they are spraying, for example. So the examination will be conducted in such a way that we can test their knowledge.

Secondly, she asked that, in our effort to eradicate dengue fever and the breeding of Aedes mosquitoes, we should go on a door-to-door campaign and that we should help the households to solve their specific problems. Sir, I do not think it is really possible for us to do a door-to-door campaign, if we want to reach out to the whole country. What we have is a very broad based education approach where, throughout the year, pamphlets and brochures are being sent out to households, especially those in areas which are prone to the breeding of Aedes mosquitoes. Then we provide them with literature and the key advice on what to do. For those households which are found to be breeding mosquitoes, we actually counsel and advise them on the specific steps to take. For example, where the gutters are choked up, we will explain to them the need to check the gutters regularly, clear the gutters and even drill holes in the gutters to ensure that there is no ponding of water in certain parts of the gutters which tend to sag over time. What we have found is that most households actually do know what they should be doing. When they are caught, they will say, "Yes, I wanted to do it but I forgot." So the key thing is to educate them and tell them that everyone needs to play a very responsible role. They should put their knowledge into action and not assume that everything will be well. Because at the end of the day, if the Aedes mosquitoes are breeding, their own family members would be the first to be bitten.

Sir, she also pointed out that the chemicals present in the pesticides and insecticides are dangerous. We are introducing this Bill because the chemicals are becoming more potent. There is a much bigger range of chemicals now being available and therefore we must ensure that the industry and those who are involved in the industry, from the operators to the technicians to the workers, are knowledgeable and trained. So we are going to train them and part of the training will also be to train them in handling the chemicals, to protect themselves and also the general public. We will also require the workers and the technicians through the issue of a code of good practice to use proper equipment and protective gear. In this way, this will protect the workers as well as the general public through the use of proper equipment. All the workers and technicians will be required to go for annual medical checkups.

She also proposed that a committee be set up to assess the safety of the products. Sir, Dr Neo will be happy to know that we already have such a committee in operation. It is known as the Advisory Committee for Hazardous Substances and Toxic Wastes and this Committee is charged with reviewing the import, storage and use of poison and other hazardous chemicals. Sir, it is already ongoing.

Mr Ang Mong Seng has asked that public parks and vacant land should also be included in the Bill. Sir, public parks and vacant lands are also covered because this Bill also binds the Government, ie, all Government departments have to comply with the provisions of this Bill. If there are vacant State lands, for example, the body that is responsible for looking after that State land is also responsible for ensuring that the land is clear of vector breeding sites and, if not, we will also take action against them.

He also stressed the importance of education. He said that fines are good but it is also important to educate the people. We do have a very active education programme going on. It is a year round programme. We have exhibitions at community centres, shopping centres and the various grassroots organisations. We will continue to do that. In fact, with the setting up of the CDCs, we are now in active communication with some of the CDCs to see what we can do, in terms of working together to propagate the message in the constituencies under them.

He has also suggested that, to make the training programme more accessible, we should arrange for more centres to be set up. Sir, our intention is to have the private sector conduct the training eventually. As a start, we will set up the training programmes and the examinations, and we will encourage private companies to come forward and offer training programmes which we will then vet and endorse. Our responsibility eventually will only be to set the examinations, certify and issue certificates to the workers who qualify. That is indeed our approach.

Dr Lily Neo: I would like to clarify one point. Earlier on, I did ask for increased surveillance only at locations where the incidents of dengue haemorrhagic fever are especially high and where door-to-door instruction pamphlets will be useful, not for the whole of Singapore.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, in those areas where dengue fever or Aedes mosquitoes are commonly found, we do have a very intensive programme and this intensive programme also includes door-to-door campaign.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir. What is the penalty for mosquito breeding grounds found on the premises or properties under the charge of, for instance, the Ministry of the Environment, such as concealed drains, sewers and sub-stations, or land under the Land Office?

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, if they are found to be not diligent, then the same penalties do apply.

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. - [Mr Yeo Cheow Tong].

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