ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.40 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."

The control of environmental pollution is now dealt with under the Clean Air Act (which was enacted in 1971), the Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act (which was enacted in 1975), certain provisions of the Poisons Act and Part VI of the Environmental Public Health Act.

To meet new environmental challenges as our economy continues to develop and move up the technology chain, we need to update and consolidate these laws. This will allow us to legislate certain pollution control requirements and practices which are now specified administratively, and add new provisions.

The Environmental Pollution Control (EPC) Bill, when passed, will repeal the Clean Air Act (Chapter 45) and Part VI of the Environmental Public Health Act (Chapter 95), with some consequential amendments to the Poisons Act (Chapter 234) and the Medicine (Advertisement and Sale) Act (Chapter 177).

Mr Speaker, Sir, in many developing countries, industrialisation is often achieved with little thought for the environment. In actual fact, it is not the environment which is the only victim. Ultimately, the population suffers too, through the ill effects of a polluted environment.

In Singapore, the Government has not allowed industry to compromise our environmental standards. We have regulated the emission of pollutants from the various industries, and instituted proper handling procedures for hazardous substances. We require companies to incorporate adequate pollution control facilities in the design and construction of their manufacturing facilities, and monitor to ensure that these are properly operated and maintained.

Capping of Emissions of Pollutants from Industries

Singapore's industrial landscape has changed significantly over the past 40 years. Today, most of our manufacturing operations are of a world-scale. Many of them handle and discharge chemicals which, if not controlled properly, can pose serious threats to our environment as well as to the health and safety of our people.

While the total pollutants emitted into the air today are within safe limits, the amount of pollutants will increase with the continued expansion and growth of our industrial sector in the years ahead. We therefore cannot afford to be complacent, and must ensure that we have adequate and appropriate regulatory powers to deal with any new environmental development.

Over the years, my Ministry has tackled pollution problems through regulations made under various Acts. For example, we introduced the Poisons (Hazardous Substances) Rules, 1986 under the Poisons Act and the Environmental Public Health (Control of Noise at Construction Sites) Regulations, 1990 under the Environmental Public Health Act. Such controls will now be consolidated into the EPC Bill. This Bill will also give my Ministry additional powers to control or prohibit the emission of any particular air pollutant from any industrial or trade premises.

Engagement of registered inspectors to check completed developments

Sir, currently, ENV officers carry out inspections of completed developments to ensure compliance with environmental requirements. To encourage self-regulation, the Bill will provide for the engagement of registered inspectors who are professional architects or engineers to undertake such checks.

Putting existing practices into law

At present, before major projects such as oil refineries, petrochemical plants and land reclamation are implemented, my Ministry will ask the developer to submit details of pollution control measures and, if necessary, risk assessment studies. We also require installations using hazardous substances to carry out regular safety audits on the safe handling and management of such substances. Industrial premises discharging air pollutants into the atmosphere or trade effluent into the water-course or sewer are required to monitor such discharges, treating them first, where necessary. All these administrative requirements will now be provided for in the EPC Bill and thus, be legally enforceable.

The Bill will enable the Ministry to control air pollution from sources other than industrial and commercial premises, such as smoky vehicles. The particulates emitted by diesel-driven vehicles are very fine and a large proportion of them are less than 2.5 micron in size (and these are commonly referred to as PM2.5). Our studies indicate that diesel particulates make up more than 50% of the PM2.5 in our air. Studies in the US and other countries have linked PM2.5 to an increase in respiratory diseases and increased mortality. The studies indicate that it is prudent to keep PM2.5 levels as low as possible in order to protect the health of the population. Poorly-maintained diesel-driven vehicles give off excessive amount of particulates. My Ministry has worked closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Traffic Police to take enforcement action against smoky vehicles. Although the proportion of smoky diesel-driven vehicles has gradually reduced over the years, the number has nonetheless remained high. My Ministry will continue to step up enforcement action against smoky vehicles in Singapore. This Bill will result in my Ministry taking over from the LTA the responsibility for enforcement against smoky vehicles.

The Bill will extend my Ministry's controls over noise from construction sites and other sources. It will empower my Ministry to order construction sites and workplaces that generate excessive noise affecting residential neighbourhoods to stop work if they fail to comply with a notice to take appropriate measures to control noise.

My Ministry vets building plans for compliance with pollution control requirements and gives its clearance to the Building Control Division which then issues approval under the Building Control Act. The Bill will include provisions requiring the direct submission of building plans to ENV for pollution control purposes.

Major provisions of the EPC Bill

Sir, I shall now highlight the major provisions that are being introduced in this Bill.

Use of Scheduled Premises (Part III)

Scheduled premises are specified in the First Schedule. They are industrial premises which store bulk quantities of hazardous substances or carry out activities that may cause serious air pollution. Clauses 6 to 9 require such premises to be licensed before they can be occupied or used. ENV will impose appropriate conditions in the licence to prevent and control pollution of the environment and to ensure that the hazardous substances are properly managed and controlled.

Air Pollution Control (Part IV)

Clauses 10 to 14 of the Bill deal with the control of air pollution. Clause 10 requires the occupier of any industrial or trade premises to maintain and efficiently operate any fuel burning equipment and any air pollution control equipment installed in the premises. Clause 12 provides for the introduction of caps on total emissions of air impurities. Any emission in excess of such caps will be an offence. Clause 12 also allows the Minister to make regulations to control or prohibit emission of air impurities from any other source, eg, motor vehicles.

Water Pollution Control (Part V)

Part V of the Bill deals with water pollution control and these are covered under clauses 15 to 19. Under clause 15, any person who intends to discharge trade effluent, oil, chemical, sewage or other polluting substances into any drain or land has to obtain a licence. This clause has been strengthened to incorporate the presumption that if there is evidence of any discharge of trade effluent, oil, chemical, sewage or other polluting matters from a premises into a drain or land without a licence, the occupier of the premises shall be guilty of the offence unless he can prove otherwise. Clause 16 requires any occupier to treat such trade effluent before it is discharged.

Clause 17 prohibits the discharge of any toxic or hazardous substance into any inland water. Any person who contravenes this provision is liable on the first conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, and on a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $100,000 and imprisonment for a term of not less than 1 month and not more than 12 months. The heavy penalties, including mandatory jail sentence for the second and subsequent convictions, are necessary as any discharge of toxic or hazardous substance into our inland water will not only contaminate our limited water resource, but also endanger the health and lives of our people.

Clause 18 empowers ENV to require any person who had discharged any toxic or hazardous substance or other polluting matter onto any land or into any drain or sea to remove and clean up such substance or matter within a specified time. Clause 19 empowers ENV to require any person to take measures to prevent water pollution due to the storage or transportation of toxic substances or other polluting matters. Currently, these requirements are enforced administratively.

Land Pollution Control (Part VI)

Sir, clause 20 empowers the Minister to make regulations to control the pollution of land. These would include regulations to require remedial measures to be taken on contaminated sites.

Control of land contamination

In land scarce Singapore, land use is reviewed regularly to ensure optimal use. Changes in land-use zoning may result in industrial sites being re-zoned for residential, recreational or other developments. Such land-use conversions have not posed any problems so far. In some developed countries, there have been occasions when industrial land had been converted to residential use, and subsequently found to have been contaminated only after the adverse effects on the health of the residents showed up many years later. By that time, it was a bit too late.

Currently, owners of industrial land, such as JTC and the Land Office, require their tenants to carry out soil studies and clean up contaminated land before the lands are returned to them. This is done administratively. My Ministry would advise JTC and the Land Office the procedure and standard for soil studies and clean up. This Bill will empower the Minister to make regulations to require that land found to be contaminated will have to be made good before change of use is allowed. Hazardous Substances Control (Part VII)

Clauses 21 to 27 deal with the control of hazardous substances. Clause 22 makes it an offence for any person to import, possess to sell, sell or offer for sale any hazardous substances without a licence. Such substances are specified in the Second Schedule. Clause 25 empowers ENV to require any person keeping any hazardous substance stored or kept in a premises that is likely to threaten the health or safety of any person or cause pollution to the environment to remove the hazardous substance for disposal in a proper facility. Currently, this is enforced through licensing control.

Clause 26 empowers ENV to require the owner or occupier of installations that store, use or handle hazardous substances in bulk quantities to carry out impact analysis studies. The studies will identify and quantify the risks of handling such hazardous substances in the installations and recommend measures to minimise or prevent such risks. The clause also empowers ENV to require such installations to review and audit their existing measures for the safe management of hazardous substances.

Noise Control (Part VIII)

Clauses 28 to 30 deal with the control of noise from construction activities and other works. Clause 28 empowers ENV to impose requirements on the way in which certain construction or other works are to be carried out in order to control the level of noise emitted from those works. Clause 29 empowers ENV to prohibit any owner or occupier of any workplace from carrying out or permitting any specified activities which may cause noise to be emitted exceeding a specified level.

ENV will be empowered to issue stop-work orders to construction sites and workplaces which generate excessive and loud noise and fail to comply with a noise control notice issued by ENV. Any person who contravenes a stop-work order is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day during which the order is not complied with, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or both. The strong measures are necessary to ensure that construction sites and workplaces take practical and reasonable care to minimize noise nuisance to nearby residents, after ENV has advised them to do so.

Licences and Industrial Plant Works (Part IX)

Clauses 31 to 34 contain provisions on licences and industrial plant works. Currently, a person requires separate licences, permits and approvals to carry out various activities, such as discharging trade effluent, occupying and using scheduled premises, importing and selling hazardous substances, etc. Under clause 31, he may apply for a single licence to carry out these activities. This will greatly simplify administrative and paper work, and improve efficiency.

Under clause 33, qualified persons are required to submit building plans of industrial plant works to ENV for the issue of clearance certificates before such works can be carried out. Clause 33 also allows for such works to be inspected and certified by professional architects or engineers registered by ENV for such purposes.

Environmental Pollution Control Measures (Part X)

Clauses 35 to 40 contain provisions relating to measures for the control of environmental pollution. Clause 35 introduces a presumption that the main contractor of a construction site is deemed to have permitted the discharge of pollutants from the site or the open burning of construction debris on the site if such incidents happen. He will be liable to the same punishment as the person who actually commits the offence, unless he can show proof that he has exercised due diligence to prevent the offence from taking place. This will ensure that the main contractor exercises proper control over the construction site and his workers and agents.

Clause 36 empowers ENV to require any person intending to carry out any activity that is likely to cause substantial pollution of the environment to carry out a study on environmental pollution control and implement such necessary preventive measures.

Clause 37 empowers ENV to require the owner or occupier of any premises from which pollutants are emitted to install monitoring equipment and suitable devices or systems to prevent or reduce the emission or discharge of such pollutants to the standard prescribed in the regulations. This again is to instill discipline and self-regulation in the industries.

Clause 38 empowers the Minister to make regulations to require any industrial or trade premises or person who deals with hazardous substances to take out and maintain insurance against environmental risks.

Clause 39 empowers the Minister to order premises which emit or discharge air impurities, trade effluent or hazardous substances which are likely to cause pollution of the environment or be injurious to public health or safety to:-

(a) cease the process which causes such emission or discharge;

(b) cease such emission or discharge; or

(c) carry out measures to collect, store and treat such emission or discharge to specified requirements.

The penalty for not complying with such an order is a fine not exceeding $100,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 months or both and a further fine of $2,000 for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction.

Enforcement (Part XI)

Clauses 41 to 50 contain provisions which confer on ENV powers which are necessary for the enforcement of the Bill. Clauses 43 to 45 give authorised officers powers of investigation and arrest. Such officers can interview and take the statement of a suspected offender or a witness of an offence under the Bill. If such suspected offender or witness fails to appear before the authorised officer as required, a warrant may be issued by a Magistrate to secure his attendance. Authorised officers can also arrest and detain a person who is suspected to have committed an offence under the Bill until his name and address can be correctly ascertained. However, he shall not be detained longer than is necessary for bringing him before a court.

Clauses 47 and 48 give authorised officers power of entry. Clause 50 empowers authorised officers to search any premises suspected of storing or dealing with hazardous substances or emitting air impurities or discharging trade effluent without permission, and to seize, seal or take samples of substances found in the premises. They may also require the production of records and documents and take photographs where necessary.

Compensation, Damages and Costs (Part XII)

Clauses 51 to 64 relate to the recovery of compensation, damages and costs payable under the Bill. Clause 51 provides for the determination of the apportionment of the amount and the question of liability of any compensation, damages, fees and costs under the Bill by a court in case of dispute.

Clause 53 imposes a charge on the premises for the recovery of costs and expenses incurred by the Government under the Bill which are payable by the owner of those premises.

Miscellaneous Provisions (Part XIII)

Clauses 65 to 78 contain miscellaneous provisions. Clause 72 provides for offences under the Bill to be compounded for a sum not exceeding $5,000.

Conclusion

This Bill will enable my Ministry to deal with new challenges that can threaten the good living environment we enjoy today. With its passage, my Ministry will have the necessary powers to ensure that Singaporeans will continue to enjoy a clean and pollution free environment.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for permitting me to speak on this Bill.

Sir, for a highly urbanised and densely populated city state such as Singapore, the quality of the environment is a crucial factor in our living standard. In this instance, Sir, I am using the word "standard" in the broadest sense, not just economic affluence. In fact, without a high quality environment, economic affluence may come to nothing. The environment in Singapore, some one and a half years ago when we were badly affected by the haze from Indonesia, is a case in point. Yet, despite this motherhood truth, we still pollute our environment. Yes, Sir, we are the polluters of the very environment that sustains us and that is why an Environmental Pollution Control Bill is needed and this is why this Bill must be supported by all in this House.

But Sir, if we are the polluters of the environment, then surely to control pollution, we must start at the source of the problem. Although it is beyond the provisions of this Bill, I would urge the Minister to expend greater efforts to minimise the generation of pollutants. This means tackling the very sources themselves.

On a social level, education plays a key role, especially educating the young. Parents, teachers and religious leaders must be brought into the picture to teach our future generations that environmental pollution is as sinful as the most heinous crimes. Such values must be made part of our future generations' psyche. In this respect, we, as adults, must set good examples for our children. We must try, for our sake as well as for their sake.

Here, I must hasten to add that Singapore is doing much in this area. The Ministry of the Environment, through its support of the Singapore Environmental Council and the various "green" non-government organisations and its "clean and green" programmes and campaigns, certainly champions the environmental cause. I think the Government is doing a good job. But good is not enough. More must be done.

On the industrial level, the Government has done very little. Other than giving vocal encouragement and some minor financial incentives, the Government has done little else, except for punishments. In fact, Sir, this Bill under debate is the very example of this approach. It is nothing more than a series of "Thou shall not do this" and "Thou shall not do that" and "If thou disregard these edicts, thou shall be punished".

I am not saying that this approach is not needed. All I am saying is that it is not sufficient to change habitual behaviour. Make no mistake about that; pollution is not because one wants to pollute but because of personal convenience, one pollutes. In the case of industry, it is usually because of convenience to the company and lower costs.

I see no reason why there cannot be financial incentives for those who are prepared to spend on equipment and procedures to reduce pollution at source. For example, why cannot the Government give double tax deduction incentives for expenses relating to the attainment of ISO 14000 standards? Why cannot individual taxpayers be given tax deductions for the installation of solar heating systems in their homes?

If the Government really wants to change the mindset of Singaporeans with regard to pollution of the environment, there should be encouragement as well as punishment. While punishment is needed for the wrongdoers, what is more needed is the encouragement for people to change their attitudes and behaviour.

Earlier, I said that adults must set good examples for children to follow. Perhaps, I should also have added that the Government should set examples for adults to follow. However, after all that is said and done, despite being an urbanised society with a high per capita vehicle ownership, the world's busiest sea port, a major hub for air transportation, a major petroleum refining and chemical manufacturing centre and other activities which can give rise to heavy pollution, our environment remains relatively good and clean. The level of pollution in Singapore's environment is below the limits prescribed by America's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who, as I believe, has one of the world's most stringent standards in this area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do want to take this occasion to congratulate the Minister and his staff for a job well done. However, this is not to say that they have done all that is to be done and can therefore rest on their laurels. As I said earlier, they could do so much more for the environmental cause, especially tackling the problem from other angles.

Sir, coming to the Bill itself, I find little to quarrel with it. This is not surprising since the Bill is a piece of legislation to give power to the Government to enact rules and regulations to prevent pollution of the environment. The devil is therefore in the details and the enforcement of compliance with the rules and regulations. The legislative powers in the Bill are wide, and rightly so. The rules and regulations arising from legislation will be tough with heavy, perhaps even draconian penalties. There is, however, Sir, pollution and pollution. For example, air pollution may originate from factories, smoky vehicles or the burning of joss papers. Are the culprits to be equally punished?

Once this Bill is passed, it will be in the hands of the Executive to promulgate the rules and regulations and to enforce compliance. By the nature of the subject, the Bill is long on principles and short on details. I would therefore request the Minister to make a categorical statement that in carrying out the duties under the Bill, his Ministry's officers will carry the big stick but will walk softly.

On air pollution, despite the Minister's comments on his cooperation with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the assumption of certain responsibilities from LTA, I am still surprised that motor vehicles come simply under clause 12(5) as "any other sources". After all, I would estimate that about half the particulation pollution in the air originates from vehicular sources. Motor vehicles are the major single source of pollution in this respect in Singapore and they deserve more attention than to be classified under "any other sources". Moreover, with the spread of motor vehicle ownership amongst the public, the people need to know what responsibilities they have with regard to pollution in the form of more specific items in the Bill. The Bill should be more specific on this. Otherwise, we might as well have a Bill which simply states that this Bill empowers the Ministry or the Minister to enact all regulations to control pollution from all sources, and that will cover everything if you do not want to be specific about the items in the Bill.

On water pollution, I would like the Minister to explain the reason for excluding the discharge of toxic substances into the sea that is part of Singapore's territorial waters. Surely, the sea around us is just as important as our inland water. Perhaps, it is covered under some other legislation such as Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act. Sir, if so, then this Bill is not complete in that it should include major items like the discharge of toxic substances into the sea forming part of Singapore's territory. I fear that with different legislation under the purview of other Ministries, things may fall in between stools.

After all, clause 4 of the Bill empowers the Ministry to authorise town councils and statutory boards to perform or exercise all or any of the functions, duties and powers under the Bill and the regulations. So control of pollution originating from items such as motor vehicles and discharging of toxic substances into the sea could be part of the Bill with the enforcement of compliance either delegated to other competent agencies of the Government capable of doing the job or in the case of smoky vehicles, by the Ministry itself.

Clause 20 of the Bill provides the Minister with powers relating to land pollution. Sir, would this provision overlap or conflict with the Environmental Public Health Act? Would the powers and jurisdiction of the Director under this Bill and the Commissioner of Public Health overlap? For example, toxic and hazardous wastes are currently controlled under the Environmental Public Health Act (Toxic Industrial Waste) Regulations. If these wastes contaminate the land, which regulations would take preference? Perhaps this provision addresses a gap in the current regulations relating to land pollution. If so, could the Minister explain?

Noise pollution is probably the most difficult type of pollution to define and to enforce. The reason is that though noise levels can be measured objectively, noise pollution is relative. In other words, what may not be noise pollution to one person could be pollution to others. It all depends on the general level of noise of one's surrounding and the level one is used to. I am sure that one of the most difficult tasks ever performed by the Ministry's officials is that of trying to persuade one of two contending parties that what the latter deems as noise pollution is not noise pollution as defined by the Ministry's regulations. For example, if one is unhappy about noise, the Ministry officials will put a monitoring device at the noise source. If the measurement of the noise at source is below the Ministry's limits, they will say that it is not noise pollution. But to somebody who is not used to that heavy level of noise, it is certainly pollution. Therefore, I am saying that in cases like this, there would be a difference in perception simply because noise pollution is a very relative item.

Hence, in coming out with the standards relating to noise pollution, I hope the Ministry would take into consideration the neighbourhood in which the noise is being generated. Instead of just using one standard measurement of noise level at the source of the noise for all situations, the Ministry could perhaps use differing measurements for different situations. For example, I would expect that construction sites next or near to schools, hospitals and residential homes should only be allowed to generate noise levels much lower than those sites further afield. The hours of operation could also be much more curtailed so as not to cause noise pollution in such neighbourhoods.

Sir, clause 36 empowers the Director of Environmental Pollution Control to call for a study on environmental pollution control, if needed. I suspect that such a study could be similar to an environmental impact assessment report required in many countries to ensure that damage to the environment by a particular development is minimal and acceptable to the community. Such a study could be time consuming and expensive. I would like to see the onus for calling such a study vested in the Minister rather than the Director.

Clause 37 is a new clause on the self-monitoring of one's own pollution. This is a much-welcomed provision. Increasingly, industries must be required to self-monitor. The provision, however, could be improved with several additions. For example, I think it should require the owner or occupier not only to self-monitor but also to go through the results and identify the infringements for the Ministry. In this respect, I would expect that any self-respecting company would not purposely want to pollute, but rather want to help prevent pollution. And this definitely would help the Director to do a better job. Also, while there are penalties for the unapproved alteration of the monitoring equipment or system, there is no provision for penalties on submission of false particulars or for failure to submit the monitored data. I think such provision should be included.

Sir, I also support the provision of enhanced penalties for offences relating to pollution. It is time for the Government and for us to be tough on offences against nature and the community. In this respect, clause 71 taken directly from section 67 of the Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act may not be adequate. It may not be as effective as section 42 of the Hazardous Wastes (Import, Export and Transit) Act, under which officers of the offending company are presumed to be guilty unless they can prove that they have exercised the necessary due diligence of trying to prevent the offence. This provision should be used instead of the current clause 71; perhaps if not now, then in subsequent amendments. It will certainly compel the officers of more companies to look seriously at preventing pollution.

Finally, Sir, environmental issues involve the whole community. More significantly, the community interest is increasing these days. The recent furore in the possibility of a new golf course on the banks of Kranji Reservoir is a case in point. This is good for the development of a civil society in Singapore. We should encourage such a development. I would therefore like to request the Minister to refer this Bill to a Select Committee to ensure that all those interested in preventing pollution of our environment be given an opportunity to say their piece.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving the Second Reading of the Amendment Bill, the Minister has touched on many areas. However, I would like to give my comments only on one aspect - noise pollution.

Singapore is an urbanised nation and we have progressed well in the past three decades. While we are moving into the 21st century, we face bigger challenges ahead. We want to develop Singapore into an international financial centre. In public transport, we want to have a world-class land transport system. In public housing, we want to see every Singaporean own his or her own property. In order that we would be able to attain such objectives, building projects have to be carried out very intensively. In the process, there is of course the problem of noise pollution, which is inevitable.

However, serious noise pollution will not only affect our living environment, our quality of life and our health will also be affected. Workers who spend long hours in the noisy worksites are bound to suffer adverse effects on their health. It is stipulated that the noise level for work carried out between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm should not exceed 75 dba, and after 7.00 pm, it should not exceed 65 dba. Anyone who infringes this regulation will be warned in the first instance, and if he continues to infringe this regulation he can be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for more than 3 months, or both such fine and imprisonment. This regulation may serve to check the noise pollution level at worksites.

However, there is no restriction on the number of hours that work can be carried out at worksites. In fact, work can be carried out 24 hours a day. In the day time, the noise pollution may be tolerated by the residents in the nearby area, but in the night time when the residents need to rest after a hard day's work, the noise pollution is simply unbearable, particularly if the work sites are very close to the housing estates. For certain types of works, such as piling, drilling and mixing of concrete, the noise generated can be very loud, and certainly very irritating. This will adversely affect the lives of the residents. Normally, in the HDB estates, we observe that, after 8.00 pm, our children will have to do their homework and the adults need to relax and prepare for the next day's work. For the elderly, particularly those who are not in good health, they will require some quiet time to rest. This noise pollution will cause a lot of unhappiness among the people and very often we, MPs, receive a lot of complaints from them.

For example, in my constituency, there are at the moment four active work sites. I received frequent complaints on two of them, one at Guilin View and the other at Hillview Estate, because they are very close to the HDB estate - as close as just 50 metres away. Noise pollution from these two worksites has disturbed our residents. I have personally visited the worksites with the developers and our grassroots leaders. The contractors told me that they have complied with the regulations set down by the Ministry of the Environment. But, one evening, when we went down to one of the worksites, even the developer himself agreed that the noise was unbearable and that the whole living environment around the area was badly disturbed. I requested the developer to instruct his contractors to refrain from carrying out activities which are very noisy at night. He agreed. From this, it can be seen that sometimes the complaints by the residents are valid and their requests are not too unreasonable. In the day time, the noise is there, but they put up with it. But at night, they need to have some quiet time. No doubt, building construction work has to go on, but the living environment of the people must also be taken into consideration.

Sir, I have three suggestions to make. First, at all worksites which are in close proximity, say, within 100 metres from the housing estates, the work should be constrained. In other words, after 8.00 pm, the contractor should not carry out activities which are capable of generating loud noise so as not to affect the living environment of the people. For worksites which are in the middle of nowhere, for example, in the new towns or places far away from housing estates, there would not be a problem. They can work round the clock, 24 hours a day. Just now, Mr Heng Chiang Meng has also brought up the point about worksites which are near to hospitals and nursing homes. In those cases, the working hours should also be constrained.

Secondly, the measurement of the noise pollution index should be carried out more comprehensively. For example, at the Guilin View worksite, after complaints by the residents, I went with the grassroots leaders and the developers to the worksite. At the worksite, we found that the noise level was within the limit permitted by the Ministry. But when we went to the 9th floor, we did not even need to take out the meter. The noise was just so loud that we were unable to converse with one another without shouting. It was obvious that the residents were greatly disturbed by the noise. I feel that when measuring the noise level, more comprehensive measures should be taken. This is because at the lower floor, it may not be so noisy, but strange enough, when you go to the higher floors, the noise level seems to rise.

Sir, the contractors should be more careful in taking measurements. Perhaps some sort of device, like the speed limit detector on taxis, can be installed. On the taxi, once a certain preset speed limit is exceeded, the device would set off an alarm to indicate that the taxi has exceeded the limit. Likewise, if such a similar device can be installed at the worksite to detect the noise level once it exceeds a certain preset limit, the alarm will be triggered off, and the contractor will know he has to do something about it.

Thirdly, all worksites are required to engage a safety officer to be stationed on site. I feel that with some training, the safety officer could also take on an additional duty of checking on the noise level at the worksite. I think taking up this additional responsibility is not a big problem because the safety officer has to be personally present at the worksite anyway. He has to ensure that all the safety measures are being taken. I feel that he could also do a good job in keeping the noise level down.

I hope that the Minister will look seriously into my suggestions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 2.30 pm

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, pollution is a common term associated with rapid urbanisation and industrial development. A recent report shows that out of the ten most polluted cities, nine are in China. There was also a report that if nothing is done, in 20 years' time, Hong Kong will be as polluted as Bangkok. In certain parts of India, the air is so polluted that one could smell petrol while walking in the street of the city of Calcutta. Air pollution does not only exist in the developing nations, but also in the western developed cities like Los Angeles, Paris and Rome.

We are very fortunate that despite rapid urbanisation and development of our economy, the air in Singapore is still practically pollution-free and well suited for human habitation. We have to be thankful for the stringent pollution control by the Government which manages and controls the various anti-pollution laws to ensure that we do not follow the footsteps of others who trade pollution for economic development.

Sir, in the past, the different aspects of pollution were handled by different ministries. For example, the control of hazardous materials is administered by the Ministry of Health, the Clean Air Act is administered by the Prime Minister's Office, and water pollution comes under the Ministry of the Environment. The existing arrangement causes difficulty in the management and control of pollution. This is because pollution which violates one particular Act would also violate the others. Take the example of discharge of hazardous waste into the watercourse that contravenes the water pollution regulations and also the Control of Hazardous Materials regulations. Land pollution involves evaporative substance which will cause pollution to the air, the land and the watercourse.

The Bill presented for Second Reading today combines all the pollution matters into one Bill to be known as the Environmental Pollution Control Bill. It puts all matters relating to the control of pollution into one Bill and it is to be administered by one ministry, ie, the Ministry of the Environment. As long as there is anything to do with pollution, be it noise pollution, air pollution, land pollution or any dangerous substance that exists and causes health or hazardous problem to the public, it will be under the ambit of this Environmental Pollution Control Bill. With this Bill, the administration of anti-pollution matters under one ministry and one Bill, it is good enough to deal with all the culprits who cause pollution to our environment. To the lay person, this arrangement becomes very clear and easy for them. If there is a problem concerning pollution, the Ministry of the Environment will be the right Ministry to contact and to seek redress.

I would like to comment on a few issues that have arisen from the Bill. In Part II, clause 5(1) to (4) exempts the Director from personal liability. We all know that the action taken by the Director is based on good faith in preventing the outbreak of pollution that causes danger and suffering to the public. On certain occasions, the Director may misjudge and his subsequent action could cause significant financial losses to people if things like production machines or processes have to be shut down. If the Bill gives a blanket protection to the Director who is fully exempted from any form of liability, there might be an occasion where a wrong or convenient decision could be made which causes substantial financial losses to the company and it has no way to seek redress under this particular Bill. If the liability of the Director is not fully exempted, he could be more careful in making a decision in a borderline situation, and he would also examine other less painful alternatives in overcoming a pollution problem. If the officer is liable for his action, a more sensible decision and action would be taken in such a borderline situation which is not just based on the best anti-pollution measures but also the interest of others could be taken into consideration.

Sir, Part IV mentioned about the prohibition of burning combustible materials but it does not mention about the common pollution created by open fire, which is quite commonly practised in the past at construction sites when disposing wooden or combustible construction wastes and also in rural areas where small traders burn used electrical wires for recovery of copper. Could the Minister clarify these matters?

Section 18 (Part IV) mentioned about the provision to make the transportation and storage of toxic and polluting matter safe as required by the Director. This could be a very technical matter and subjected to different opinions and technical standards. If there should be disagreement, the Bill does not say how the matter could be resolved. When a violation takes place and hazardous materials are released, the maximum penalty is $20,000. However, it does not say who should bear the cost of cleaning-up. In my view, the culprit should be made to bear all the costs of the clean-up of the pollution he has created.

In air pollution, odour is one of the usual complaints by lay people. It is the substance that creates an unpleasant smell but yet it might not be hazardous to health like other pollutants. The odorants could be introduced into the air in small amounts but the smell could be so unbearable. This could be the odorant from sewage treatment plants, fermentation of food from the food industry, solvents from the application of glue and paint and from the tarmac plant producing road surfacing materials. In my view, control of this type of pollutants is quite loosely regulated in Singapore.

Sir, I want to relate one of my experiences. I used to travel along Jalan Boon Lay. Every time I was irritated by a strong and unpleasant smell. I would like the Minister to enlighten the House how the situation I cited along Jalan Boon Lay could be improved after the passage of this particular Bill.

Sir, not all the plants burn fuel. Take the example of a concrete mixing plant in the premises of a pre-mixed company or in a construction site. It is quite common that this kind of plant emits a huge amount of particles during the production process and that could create a very unhealthy environment either in a housing estate or industrial estate. I would like to know how the Bill is able to deal effectively with this kind of pollution.

Sir, in the area of water pollution, it does not mention about one of the important aspects of pollution known as thermal pollution. In other words, it means that once discharged hot water goes into the watercourse, the thermal pollution would cause serious pollution problems in the watercourse because it upsets the favourable living environment for all the inter-related bio-organisms in the watercourse. May I know which part of the Bill deals with this specific kind of problem?

Section 18 (Part V) empowers the Director to order the removal and clean up of hazardous materials that pollute the environment. In many cases, we know that the clean-up will be done by the Singapore Civil Defence Force. If this is the case, who should pay for the cost? I feel, just as I have said earlier, the culprit should be made to bear the cost of the cleaning up.

Part VII deals with the licensing of people who trade in hazardous substance, including hazardous waste. I would like to know whether the person collecting such waste must have adequate facilities to treat the waste before a licence is issued. Otherwise, the consequence can be quite serious because it could lead to illegal dumping or the export of the waste for financial gain.

Sir, I would like to relate another example which may be related to the licensing of collection of waste. This particular example happened not long ago. There was a big fire of a huge collection of recycled wood in Lim Chu Kang. It took a few days for the fire brigade to put down the fire. In this case, luckily, the waste is not hazardous. But we could draw a similar conclusion if the collector of waste does not treat his collected waste properly. In my opinion, the recycled wood collector was given a licence to collect waste wood and he charged $40 for every ton of waste wood delivered to his premises. However, the licensee did not have sufficient production capacity to recycle the wood into some marketable products. Perhaps, the fire "accident" helped to solve the huge pile-up problem of this particular collector. In this case, we were lucky because this was not hazardous waste. If it was, the damage to the health of our fellow Singaporeans would well exceed anything that money could compensate. I would like the Minister to clarify in what way a licence would be issued to a hazardous waste collector.

In the Second Schedule to the Bill, the ozone depleting materials are listed. I would like to know how the Minister would regulate the use of such controlled materials, in particular CFC 11 and CFC 113. I ask this because CFC 11 is the gas used in the production of polyform for packaging purpose and also for the cups and plates that we use in the hawker centres and canteens. Should we regulate and discourage the use of polyform? CFC 113 is the solvent used extensively in the electronic industry for the cleaning of printed wiring assembly. What is the policy of the Ministry in encouraging the industries to phase out the use of CFC 113 and to replace it with other more environmental friendly solvents?

Sir, the last point I would like to raise is that the Bill also mentioned about the qualified person and the registered inspector. Could the Minister enlighten the House how should these qualified persons and registered inspectors be chosen?

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Tay Beng Chuan (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in principle, I support this Bill to control pollution to the environment, as it will further improve our environment and hygiene, to the benefit of our people.

The problem is this Bill seems to give too wide and too much power to the enforcement officers of the Ministry of the Environment. People in the trade are worried that the Ministry officials may nit-pick and enforce these pollution prevention and public health regulations in an inhumane manner. If that is the case, then the traders will have to spend a lot of time and money just to comply with the various rules and regulations, and live in constant fear of being booked, fined and even imprisoned for infringement against any of these rules. Faced with escalating business cost and intense competition from the neighbouring countries, the traders often find it difficult to put up with the complicated rules and regulations of the various Government departments. They hesitate to develop their business plans and even lose their original spirit of entrepreneurship. This is indeed regrettable! I therefore hope that the Ministry of the Environment will be more considerate to the traders when they enforce the various regulations. They should not neglect the possible adverse effect to Singapore's effort to enhance our competitiveness and to develop a creative business environment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Lunar New Year is barely a week away. For reasons well known to all of us, the market this year is not so good, and the coming year may well be another difficult year for us. However, whether it is a good year or a bad year, in accordance with Chinese customs and tradition, we still have to create a flourishing and bustling festive atmosphere for the New Year.

The point is, during the Lunar New Year festive season this year, we may still be able to go to Chinatown to shop for New Year goodies, and bring our family to the River Hong Bao festival to soak in the spring in the air, but unfortunately because of a new order by the Ministry of the Environment, with effect from this year, whether at Chinatown or at the River Hong Bao festival, we will not be able to buy freshly roasted bak kua or barbecued pork anymore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know what is the rationale of the Ministry to ban the roasting of barbecued pork. Is the roasting of barbecued pork causing environmental pollution? Or are there other reasons?

Singapore is a society which is particular about presenting facts in the proper perspective. Whenever a Government department promulgates any rules or policies, particularly those that have direct impact on the daily lives of the people, these policies will have to be clearly explained to the people, lest they be misunderstood as acts to disturb the people.

In other words, assuming that the Ministry bans the roasting of barbecued pork on the ground of environmental pollution, then I would like to know, among the problems of air pollution in Singapore, what percentage is caused by the roasting of barbecued pork. Or, more specifically, what is the air pollution index caused by roasting of barbecued pork?

If the roasting of barbecued pork does not cause air pollution, or the extent of pollution is negligible, then why is the Ministry banning the roasting of barbecued pork? If it is said that it has something to do with health problems, such as food poisoning or spreading of infectious diseases, then I would like to ask the Ministry to provide the relevant data to show how many people had actually suffered from food poisoning or contacted certain infectious disease by eating barbecued pork roasted at the roadside.

If the act of roasting is really causing serious problems to our environment and hygiene, then why does the Ministry not take action against the other acts of roasting, such as the roasting of chicken-wings, suckling pigs, otak, satay, etc? Why are people still allowed to hold barbecue parties at the East Coast Park, and the holiday chalets at Changi Village and Sentosa?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we often say we want to preserve our traditions. Yet, we are breaking our traditions all the time. Like the tossing of yu sheng or raw fish, the roasting of bak kua is very much a part of the custom when the Chinese community celebrates the Lunar New Year in Singapore. It is a tradition which is very much alive. We should cherish such living tradition, rather than killing the tradition now and then trying to restore it a few years later for any intent or purpose. It is always difficult to resurrect a dead tradition. I believe this is why some learned people are strenuously opposing the Tourism Board's plan to transform Kreta Ayer into a tourist attraction which is neither fish nor fowl.

I have side-tracked. Let me return to the subject. I feel that if the Ministry of the Environment does not have very good reasons, then there is actually no need to ban the barbecued pork sellers from roasting their pork in public.

In this connection, I urge the Ministry of the Environment to review this policy and try to adopt more flexible measures to enable the shopkeepers or hawkers to provide instantly roasted steaming-hot barbecued pork to the consumers during this festive season, so that we may still be able to salvage some moments of joy and happiness with the aroma generated by the roasting of barbecued pork, as we embark on another difficult year.

Finally, let me take this opportunity to wish Mr Speaker and all Members of this House: Gong Xi Fa Cai, and a progressive new year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Speaker, Sir, like many of the Members who have spoken before me, I share the view that Singapore has generally a good record in environmental pollution control. This is especially so considering we are a very densely built city and a hub of industrial activity. This has not been fortuitous, not an act of fortune. This good record is based on a combination of law, policy, administrative strength, science and engineering. When these come together, then it is possible to have both growth and a good environment record. And the Bill is a further step in making sure this continues even as our economic growth seeks new avenues and industries.

In this sense, the Bill is a welcome Bill in an effort to update and consolidate different laws for air, water, hazardous wastes, and to integrate the management under one Act, under one Ministry, and under one approach. I have three basic comments as regards, firstly, standards; secondly, the approach; and thirdly, on some particulars of the Bill.

First, on the question of standards. As the Member, Mr Heng, said, the question is in the details. When we set control, we have to ask what standards we are asking the Ministry to enforce. In this regard, I would like the Minister to clarify how Singapore's pollution control standards measure up against other countries, and particularly the developed countries and cities in these developed countries. It is too easy, I think, to look at developing countries to say that they are more polluted than us, and then to feel very self-satisfied. As we upgrade, for Singapore in the 21st century, we will have to pitch the quality of life that can compete with the best. And I would ask the Ministry to constantly review and upgrade the standards when needed.

The second question, in terms of standards, is the need for best practices, given the limited space and a growing population. In other words, it is not just the standard we set, but the practices and methods of production used by industries and by households, by all polluters or would-be polluters. So, in this era, where we are moving from low-end industries and de-emphasising this kind of production to the upper end of industries, such as chemical and pharmaceuticals, this can also be a source of pollution. I would like the assurance of the Minister that, together with the Economic Development Board and other economic agencies, these questions of production and process are being thought of, even as we invite these industries to come to Singapore. Because while the Bill focuses on pollution control, that is, monitoring after the fact, it must be done in an investment friendly way. This comes to my second point, that of the approach of the Bill.

As I mentioned, this Bill integrates, but we can question whether it goes far enough. There may be on one hand too much details; on another hand, there may be not enough breadth. In terms of breadth, for example, while the greatest problem that Singapore has faced recurrently over the last decade is the haze from Indonesia, this problem is of such a size that whatever we do about our own vehicular emissions or bak kua sellers, or whatever, these are dwarfed completely by the problem. And if the Minister, I hope, recognises, this Bill does not go any step towards helping us to deal with this problem, such as making the Bill apply to the act, and our regulations apply to whoever pollutes our air, no matter where the pollution comes from.

The other element in which this Bill may not go far enough is that pollution control can sometimes be only an end-of-the-pipe solution, that is, only after the pollution is already generated, do we worry about where it is put. There is a need, therefore, to control production processes further up the chain of production. There is a need to control use and production processes and to integrate land use and planning. Sustained development in the sense requires much more inter-Ministry coordination. My understanding is that there is, in administrative matters, a close coordination between environmental pollution control under the Minister and his Ministry and the land use planning authorities which fall under the Ministry of National Development. I would ask for the Minister's reassurance that this coordination will continue and in fact grow over the next decade.

The second question in terms of approach relates to clauses 26 and 36 of the Bill. Under these clauses, as the Minister has said, identified persons can be directed to assess the environmental pollution effects of their activities. This is a welcome step. This takes us in a direction of assessing the environmental impact of projects, or what is known as EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment). However, while this is the right step, my concern is that it does not go far enough in fostering transparency, public information and participation.

The trends in international environmental law and in various other documents from other countries suggest that when the public is informed, the public has access to information and the public participates, this helps both the polluter and the public. The public feels more ownership over the problem, can propose solutions, and the polluter feels more strongly the genuine community involvement in asking him to conform to certain standards. The Bill, as it is drafted, leaves it still very much to the Government to bring down the stick on the polluter. And it does not actually help in fostering understanding among the public or a willing compliance from the producer. I think that if we move towards greater transparency, public information and participation, Singapore citizens will more greatly appreciate the hard work and the very necessary work that the Ministry is doing.

The third question in terms of approach is that the Bill, except for clause 37, still emphasises command and control, that is, after a certain standard is set, inspectors and other people must be deputised to make sure they are being met. Clause 37 is an exception because it emphasises the need for self-monitoring. I think that command and control methods are expensive and not the best practice. We need to re-emphasise self-monitoring and we need schemes for companies to find it in their interest to bring in the right technology and consultants, if necessary, to improve their processes for both better environmental protection and better efficiency. This is not therefore necessarily a negative game where the Ministry punishes and the producers suffer. Or if not, then the producers pollute and the people suffer. This can be made into a positive game in which companies prosper and the people are spared pollution. But for this game to be put in a win-win situation, there needs to be greater emphasis on technology and consultancy. There are some existing schemes under the Ministry. I would urge the Ministry to review these schemes and, if necessary, to ask for greater financial incentives to be put to this good use. These financial incentives I realise might not be under the Minister but under his colleague, the Minister for Finance, or MTI.

My third point relates to specifics of the Bill. Clause 15 of the Bill controls trade effluents. I would like the Minister's clarification whether this relates only to industrial or whether it extends to non-industrial activity. Particularly, I would like the Minister to answer whether this would cover run-off problems of fertilizers and pesticides from land. I am thinking particularly of the special problem posed by the heavy rain, given our climate in Singapore, on golf courses which use chemical fertilizers and pesticides very near to the catchment areas and reservoirs. Additionally, in terms of that provision of water pollution, I would like the Minister to reconsider the penalties presently imposed on trade effluents. These are set, I believe, at $5,000. I think that trade effluent problems are often infringed and $5,000 may be too low. This is particularly so given the importance of potable water in Singapore.

Secondly, as regards to clause 18, I commend the Bill in wanting to make sure that the power always exists for the Director to require the removal and clean up of toxic substances or other pollutants. I want to ask the Minister, however, of the scope of this clause. Because it seems to me the clause can be read quite sweepingly. There is in America a very controversial law called the Superfund. This requires polluters to clean up after the fact, that is to say, what they did was not a problem at the time they did it. But subsequently when standards had been raised, they had to come back and clean up and to bear the costs of the clean up which were not factored into their equations of production.

It seems to me that clause 18 could be read in such a way that where present regulations do not set standards or standards are relatively low, clause 18 might actually allow the Director to go back and require the producer or occupier of that land to clean up to a new and higher standard and impose cost on production, post facto.

As regards clause 20 of the Bill, it is quite similar. This relates to land pollution. Some Members might recall there have been some controversies in the past about land pollution. This relates mainly to disused petrol station or chemical plants or other store houses of this kind of substances. There was a perceived gap in legislation in the sense that the pollutants that went into the land were not necessarily infringing so long as they did not then impact on water or other areas. Given this gap, clause 20 promises that there will be new regulations. However, if we read clause 20, it is really just an indication that the Minister will make regulations. There are no details. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is able to share with us some idea of the details to forecast, for both land users as well as banks who hold mortgages over this land, their possible liabilities.

Sir, I do support this Bill. An earlier Member, I think it was Mr Heng, suggested that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee. I do not share that view. I believe this Bill is largely well-drafted and I have, from past acquaintance, confidence the regulations of the Ministry have been generally well-balanced. But I would urge the Minister to consider, as Mr Heng also said, that the devil is in the details. And as such, when the regulations come out and specific incidents come out, I would urge the Ministry to consider having a much greater public access and a dialogue over these specific regulations and incidences, rather than have a Select Committee.

With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, let me first start by thanking all Members who have spoken and very strongly supported the Bill. Let me first reply to Mr Heng Chiang Meng.

Mr Heng has asked that in tackling the pollution problem, we should start at source, and one good way is to start by educating the young and having the adults set the example. Sir, I totally agree with him, which is why we have a very active programme of involving the schools in environmental issues. In fact, many of the schools now have environmental clubs and we will continue to encourage those which do not have such clubs to form them.

Sir, he has commented that the Bill sounds like a punishment Bill. The Bill stipulates what the owners and occupiers must do, but it does not really provide any incentives to help them comply with the requirements. Sir, he is right. This is a Bill to control pollution, which is why it stipulates all the requirements, in terms of pollution control. There are incentives. But the incentives are contained in other legislation and I will go into them afterwards.

Mr Heng asked that we should differentiate the punishments because the range of polluters is so huge and the circumstances of the pollution are also very varied. Sir, indeed, we will do that. The law stipulates the maximum in which the punishment can be levied. But in levying the punishment, we will take into consideration the circumstances and the sort of polluter. This is something which has been in practice and will continue.

He has asked why the Bill did not include specifically things like motor vehicles since the pollution from motor vehicles is quite significant. Sir, in drafting the clause, we opted to give a broader description. It is not just motor vehicles because down the road, there could be other sources of pollution which we will be looking at. This description gives us maximum flexibility. But in ensuring that the message goes through very clearly, I have spent quite some time describing why diesel particulates are dangerous to health, and this is going to be one of the key points that we are going to focus on in terms of pollution control on motor vehicles.

He has asked whether the Bill applies to sea pollution. Sir, the Bill applies to pollutants discharged into drains and the definition of "drains" would be watercourses and rivers as well as the sea shore, in essence. So land-based discharge of pollutants into the watercourses that end up in the sea would still be caught within the ambit of this Bill. But pollution from ships is not covered by this Bill. Pollution from ships would be covered under another Act, which is the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act and this is administered and enforced by MPA.

Mr Heng talked about noise pollution. Again, because of the varying circumstances and locations where noise pollution is emitted, there should be a varying standard applicable to each situation. Sir, indeed that is the case. We have different permissible noise levels for different locations. For example, areas near to the homes for the aged and hospitals would have a much lower permissible noise level than, for example, a site that is in the middle of nowhere.

Mr Heng also expressed concern that since there is a provision that is very much akin to the environmental impact assessment study requirement, the power to order the carrying out of such a study should be vested in the Minister rather than the Director. Sir, there is no need for that stipulation because even when the Director makes an important order, that order normally would have to be cleared by the Minister before it is finally issued.

He has also asked about punishment for persons or companies that submit fraudulent data. Yes, we have the self-monitoring equipment and we are supposed to check. What is there to prevent the companies from tinkering with the data and then submitting false data? Sir, the companies are required to submit the data from the self-monitoring equipment to the Ministry for certain operating periods. If they go and doctor those data, they will be guilty of committing a crime and we would definitely take action against them. I must say that, so far, my Ministry has not encountered any company that has submitted doctored data to us.

Mr Ang Mong Seng talked about noise and he made three points that for work sites near homes, the work should be constrained after 8.00 pm and that after 8.00 pm, no work which emits loud noise should be allowed. Sir, in fact, we do have a requirement that after 7.00 pm, the noise level from work sites would have to be greatly reduced. So, in fact, we have gone one step further than what Mr Ang has asked for.

He has also asked that the noise be measured at an appropriate level rather than just on the ground level as in certain circumstances, the ground floor may be fairly quiet, but if you go to the upper floors, it may be very noisy. Sir, I take his point and I will ask my officers to look into that.

He has also asked that since most work sites will have a safety officer, we should perhaps make the safety officer also responsible for looking into the noise level emitted from the work site. Sir, my Ministry is now looking into the concept of an environmental control officer. We should look into various environmental aspects relating to work sites, such as breeding of mosquitoes. I will ask my officers to see whether one of the duties could also be to monitor the noise level. But we want to be careful not to overburden the construction sites with all kinds of requirements. The thinking is that, at the present moment, the environmental control officer can also double up as a safety officer. Therefore, it is not a requirement for an additional person to be employed but really to broaden the role of the safety officer who is already working there. We will look into his suggestion.

Prof. Low Seow Chay has cautioned against exempting the Director from personal liability and with this exemption provision, it may encourage the Director to make a wrong or easy decision at the expense of the company. Sir, I can assure him that, with or without the exemption provision, Government officials take their job very seriously and they always make decisions in good faith. The Environmental Pollution Control Bill has got very broad and serious implications. I can assure him that the Director is definitely a person who would take his job very seriously and would ensure that the decisions are made in a very balanced manner. The first priority must be of course to safeguard the health and safety of Singaporeans. It may be an expensive control measure, but if the pollutant is death threatening, we cannot take the easy way out and say, "Well, let us use a cheaper equipment and let them pollute the air." We will always have to make sure that the first priority is to safeguard the health of our people and to ensure that the standards are reasonable standards. We should not go for ideal standards which will of course require very heavy investment, much heavier than is necessary.

Here, I want to tie this in to what Mr Simon Tay has asked on what sort of standards we are using. We are basing our standards on those of the developed countries. For example, for air quality, our basic standard is the World Health Organisation's long-term goals for air quality. Many of the developing countries are not close to that yet, but we have already adopted that standard as our standard, and this is supplemented by the US Environmental Protection Agency's primary air quality standards as well. In fact, these are well-researched standards of a very high level but attainable level, and we have adopted this as our standard. I may as well answer the rest of the questions on this issue.

For trade effluent, we use the standards of countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the USA and Europe. In ensuring that these standards are achievable, we have also looked at the ability to comply with these standards, what sort of investment is needed, and our assessment has been that these standards are reasonable and the investments are not overwhelming.

Prof. Low has asked whether the burning of wood is covered under the Bill. Yes, the burning of wood is covered in clause 14 of the Bill. He has gone on to ask about the transportation and storage of toxic and polluting substances and who determines. What system do we use? The procedure is a very well-established one. When a company applies for permission to handle, store, or sell hazardous substances, we will first ask them for their proposal, which should include storage system, handling system, pollution control system if an accident happens, and based on their proposal, we will then review. If their proposal is a very rational one, we would be very happy to accept their proposal. It is not our purpose to run their business for them. Our interest is to ensure that the systems are in place and the systems are reasonable and that they are well structured technically and capable of coping with accidents. So we leave it to them. But if we find that the proposal is far below the minimum standards, then the Director would have to impose certain requirements, and these requirements would not be something which is taken out from the air because much of the business is already available in Singapore and therefore we can use the current practices and equipment as a standard for the new company.

He has asked about cleaning up. If there is a discharge of pollutants, then who bears the cost of the clean up? I think it is quite clear. He who pollutes must pay. The company that discharges the pollutants must pay for the clean up. Quite often, time is of essence and the Ministry may then have to arrange for the clean-up straightaway, in which case the cost of the clean up is then charged to the company.

Prof. Low asked about smell pollution and he said that the Bill does not seem to address odours. Odours are catered for under the Environmental Public Health Act and it has been quite adequate. He gave the example of Beecham, a factory in the Boon Lay area, that used to emit very strong smell. Arising from feedback from the residents and people passing by, officers from ENV went to the factory involved and worked with the factory to address the sources of that smell and how to control it. I am glad to say that if he drives past that area today, I do not think he will have that problem anymore.

He has also asked about people who trade in hazardous substances and who are collecting such waste and whether such persons must have adequate treatment facilities before a licence is issued. For companies or persons who wish to go into the business of collecting hazardous waste, we will require them to have the necessary treatment facilities. He brought up the case of a company who collected waste wood and had a big pile of waste wood which was subsequently burnt. Sir, he was not a hazardous waste collector. He was a waste wood recycler and therefore the circumstances were quite different. He had a recycling facility except I do not think he ran his facility very well and because of that, he had some problems and a fire broke out. The Government put out the fire and the cost of putting out the fire and the clean up was indeed charged to the company.

Prof. Low also talked about the use of CFC 11 and CFC 113. CFC 11 has been prohibited in Singapore and is therefore no longer used today in the production of styrofoam. I believe they use another gas which is approved. As to the import of CFC 113, it has been banned since January 1996. However, under the Montreal Protocol, remnant stocks are allowed to be used up. So what you see in Singapore that is being used are really the remnant stocks which would be used up in the near future.

He has asked how the qualified persons and registered inspectors are chosen. My Ministry conducts training courses on how to vet plans and do site inspections, and those professionals, architects and engineers who have gone through that training course would then qualify to be registered inspector. And we are looking into how to increase the number of training programmes so that we can enlarge the pool of registered inspectors.

Mr Tay Beng Chuan is worried that with this Bill, the Ministry will nitpick and enforce in a very tough manner. Let me first explain that this Bill is not a totally new Bill. It is a compilation of parts from different existing Acts and compiled into one Bill that handles the entire spectrum of pollution. Many of the clauses are therefore existing provisions and already operational. Some of them have been operational since 1971, so they are well-tried and well-proven. The few clauses which are new are actually provisions which are already operational also but they are carried out administratively. What we have done is to now formalise this by converting those administrative requirements into law. I can assure Mr Tay that the enactment of this Bill will not in any way change the administration of pollution control in Singapore.

Next, he went on quite a fair bit about bak kua and asked why has ENV proceeded to ban the outdoor barbecuing of bak kua, especially during the Chinese New Year season. Sir, this issue is one which we have been discussing with the bak kua manufacturers for some time already. In fact, I think as early as about 1 1/2 years ago, they were pre-alerted, and about a year ago, after the last Chinese New Year, we proceeded to hold fairly detailed discussions with the bak kua operators to explain to them.

The barbecuing of bak kua on street pavements has been in place for a long time, as Mr Tay has mentioned. And every Chinese New Year, you see them sprouting around all over Singapore, Chinatown and elsewhere. These street and pavement stalls are not licensed and they are not housed in licensed premises either. They spring up, operate for a few weeks and they disappear and we are not even sure where they obtain their raw meat and meat patty from. And this is the problem. It is not the smoke pollution. In fact, in announcing this move, ENV had made sure that both the Chinese press and the English press and the other media carried the explanation quite clearly that it was a public health concern, not smoke. If it is smoke, that is really not an issue.

The lack of hygiene at these makeshift stalls can lead to serious outbreaks of food borne diseases, not unlike those that had been experienced recently in some other countries. I will give you some examples. The recent outbreak of Avian flu in Hongkong resulted in six deaths and the E-coli outbreak in Japan, well-known for very clean food conditions, it broke out very quickly, killed seven people before it stopped. These are very recent examples of how such food borne diseases can quickly appear from nowhere and then pose a tremendous danger to the population. As far as bak kua is concerned, there are proper places for the food to be produced and bought and, in fact, if you walk down Chinatown, one would see many bak kua stalls. The key thing is that because the shops and stalls are licensed, the public can be assured of the proper food standards. We are dealing with a genuine public health concern and I think it is best that we stick to it.

He has also talked about the need not to break traditions. Sir, I agree with him. We would also like to keep as many of our traditions as possible, but we think that we have to realise that over time, some of the traditional practices may have to change, for good reasons, and we should not change them unless there are good reasons. Firecrackers were a very strong traditional practice. I remember growing up where, during Chinese New Year's eve, we were playing around with firecrackers, half the night not being able to sleep but I still enjoyed it. But we still had to intervene because there was a public health concern. In the case of bak kua, I do not think having that stall there is a tradition. Eating bak kua, I believe, for some people is very important, and we have not stopped this. You can still buy bak kua freely in Chinatown and in many of the supermarkets. I can assure Members that it is not our intention to stop the production and sale of bak kua.

Mr Simon Tay talked about standards and I have already replied to him. Next, he went on to talk about best practices and methods of production. I want to assure him that we do work closely with EDB and with the other Ministries and agencies to ensure that whatever we do, we are able to adopt the best practices available, but it must be a best practice that is also economical. We do not believe in going for the ideal approach, because I think that would totally make us uncompetitive. I agree with him that we must be investment friendly while at the same time safeguarding our environment.

He also talked about the breadth of legislation and that we do not go far enough in tackling pollution from abroad. This topic has cropped up periodically and I think we have to be realistic. There is really no meaning to having a provision in our legislation which we cannot enforce. And if it is pollution from a neigbouring country, it is very difficult for us to go to that neighbouring country and enforce our law if they themselves are unable to enforce their own laws. So, I think we have to be realistic and tackle this problem from another angle.

Next, he said that we should not impose controls after the fact, ie, having the self-monitoring devices is good but the pollution is already there. It is after the fact, and that we should do it before the fact. We actually do that. Whenever a project proposal is received by the EDB and the various Government departments that has a pollution element in it, that project is referred to us and we will work with the company very early in the project planning stage to make sure that they understand what are our requirements and that they build that capability to achieve our requirements into the process, because that is the most cost effective way. So our requirements become an integral part of their routine production process, which is why despite our very high requirements, I think no company has come back to tell us that our standards are not achievable.

He has also asked that we assure him that the inter-Ministry coordination work continues. Sir, that has been an ongoing process. There is very close inter-Ministry coordination and we will continue with that, both in terms of pollution control and land use. Whenever the Master Plan Committee reviews the Master Plan, ENV is involved, as are many other Government agencies.

He talked about clauses 26 and 36 and that these are akin to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and that we should get public involvement in them. At this point, I think it is useful to explain the whole process. We have to start from the Master Plan stage. In drawing up the Master Plan, the URA already got all the inputs from both the Government agencies as well as members of the public, because the URA would normally proceed to hold public dialogues when they release their draft development guide plans and the Master Plan. So the macro planning is the key point where all inputs are taken in, as well as from members of the public.

By the time when a specific project proposal is received, we are not really looking at the macro issues any more. We are really looking at the micro issues, what sort of pollutants, what sort of process, what is the level of pollution, what are our standards. These are highly technical issues. We have, over the years, built up a tremendous pool of expertise in the Government departments and where the expertise is still lacking, because maybe it is a new pollutant, for example, then what we do is that we will take in technical experts from either Singapore or from abroad to advise us. So by the time ENV gets involved in these issues, these are highly technical issues rather than a systemic broad-based type of issue, and we are very focused in dealing with them.

He talked about clause 37, on self-monitoring equipment, and that we should help companies to upgrade by providing some incentives. The incentives are there. Mr Heng Chiang Meng mentioned that too. Let me explain very briefly.

For ISO 14001, for example, we already have a scheme which is administered by the Productivity and Standards Board that offers financial grants of up to 70% of the cost of the consultancy, subject to a maximum of $40,000. And an additional grant of 50% of the one-time cost for obtaining ISO 14001 certification. My Ministry itself administers a scheme called the Accelerated Depreciation Allowance Scheme to encourage companies to use not just energy efficient equipment but also more efficient pollution control equipment. So this scheme is already in place. There are various schemes which are available and those in the industry are quite familiar with them.

He talked about clause 15 and whether it applies to industrial and non-industrial land and whether it also applies to fertilisers. I believe the clause does apply to other than industrial land. On the issue of fertilisers, definitely, yes, we do control the use of fertilisers. We make sure that our water catchment areas and the land around the reservoirs use fertilisers which are approved by both ENV and PUB, because ultimately PUB is the agency responsible for safeguarding the quality of our water.

He mentioned that the figure of $5,000 is not adequate. I have looked at the clause that he mentioned. The $5,000 fine refers to people who failed to inform ENV about the incidence of pollution. It is not for the act of polluting, but for not informing us. Yes, I am correct. It says, "shall immediately inform" and if he does not immediately inform, there is a fine of $5,000.

For pollution to inland waters, the maximum fine, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, is actually $100,000. This is a large sum because we need to safeguard our water supplies..

Sir, I think I missed out an important point made by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, ie, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I understand Mr Heng's concerns because the passing of environmental control Bills would be momentous in most countries, except that in Singapore we are actually ahead of most countries. We started on environmental controls many, many years ago and therefore this Bill is not a brand new Bill containing brand new provisions. Many of the provisions here are provisions which have been in existence for 25-30 years. Therefore, there is no need for us to send this Bill to a Select Committee. However, from time to time, we do get feedback from either the industry or the public or from interested parties with suggestions and proposals. And where those feedback are valid, we normally do note them and we would not hesitate to include them in future amendments to the Bill when the opportunity arises.

Sir, I believe I have answered most of the points.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, the Minister in his reply, when I asked for different permissible noise measurements for different situations, said that they are already doing that. I would like to ask him why his Ministry allows the (bang) drop hammer type of piling to be used for sites next to occupied houses as well as for sites next to isolated areas. Sir, I made that noise to show that in this Chamber, such a noise is very loud. But if I make the same noise in the middle of the road outside, I assure you that nobody will notice it at all, because the general noise level is much louder than probably the noise I made just now.

Sir, I do not understand why, for example, 75 dba is allowed for construction sites next to occupied houses as well as construction sites in isolated areas. Using the drop hammer method of piling, the same noise level is created. To somebody who is living next door, the noise level would be high. The effect would be different for a site further away. I see no reason why the noise level for the site next to occupied houses cannot be made much lower so that they cannot use this method. There are less noisy methods of piling. This is why I do not think that presently the Environment Ministry enforces different measurements for different permissible noise levels for different situations.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, I raised the question of clauses 18 and 20 in combination. Clause 20 recognises a gap in the law regarding control of land pollution and these have not been addressed in the present Bill except to say that there will be regulations. Clause 18, I suggested, was quite sweeping potentially. I would ask the Minister if he would like to clarify these points.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, Mr Heng has hit the right point. I agree with him that whilst we have standards in terms of noise levels - these are technical standards - there are some shortcomings which we will need to address. The noise standards refer to average sound levels over a certain number of hours, together with certain 5-minute peaks. The sound we heard is a very instantaneous noise and therefore when you average out over five minutes, and worse over several hours, that sound escapes the standard. I have pointed it out to my officials and they are looking into it.

I must apologise that I was too busy reading the Bill when Mr Tay was making his speech and I must have missed the two points that he raised. First, on clause 20 which is the clause governing the remediation of contaminated land. This is a new clause. Sir, could he repeat his point on clause 20?

Mr Simon Tay: This is a new area of legislation where we are only saying that we will have regulations to be made. Read in combination with clause 18 it suggests that the Director can order a clean up. My question to the Minister is whether, read in combination, this might mean actually the power to clean up post facto, ie, where no standards existed before, or relatively low standards existed, we impose new standards or higher standards, we can retrospectively ask the landowners or the occupiers of the land to clean up to the higher standard and to meet the cost.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, the intention is to apply clause 20 to industrial land which is being rezoned for other uses. So when the landowner is seeking to rezone, the application must also involve the Ministry of the Environment and we would then be able to inspect and require the landowner to carry out an assessment of the state of the land. If the assessment shows that certain parts of the land have been contaminated, we can require that either the owner or the occupier would have to make good that land before approval for converting that land to other use is allowed.

He asked whether clause 18 is meant to create a Superfund. Sir, it is not the intention for clause 18 to become a Superfund. The clause does not provide for the setting up of a fund to deal with contaminated sites. Clause 18 empowers the Ministry of the Environment to require any person who has discharged or caused or permitted to be discharged or spilled any toxic substance or any other polluting matters onto any land or into any drain or sea for such persons to remove and clean up such substances within a specified time.

Let me give the Member some background. From time to time, the Ministry of the Environment encounters contaminated sites, drains, etc., where we really cannot pinpoint exactly who is the polluter. To do that, we need to be on hand to spot him discharging the pollutant. We now have that presumption clause that unless you can prove otherwise, because this is your site, you shall be responsible for the clean up. So this clause allows us to do that. We do not just presume but we also require them to clean up the site.

Mr Simon Tay: May I just ask one further clarification? Does it mean that the Ministry does not intend to use these powers retrospectively to meet new standards?

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, we will apply the standards of the day. For example, if in two years' time, a factory owner applies to convert his site into a recreational site, the standards of the day must then apply. It cannot be the standard when he first bought the site.

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.