SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

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 existing Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act (WPCDA) has provisions for effectual drainage of inland areas, water pollution control and the proper collection, treatment and disposal of sewage. Provisions for the control of water pollution have been incorporated in the Environmental Pollution Control Act.

The Sewerage and Drainage Bill seeks to, firstly, incorporate updated and strengthened provisions on sewerage and drainage matters from the WPCDA; and secondly, to introduce new provisions for better management and maintenance of sewerage and land drainage systems.

The Bill will repeal the Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act (Chapter 348).

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is one of the few countries that provides their entire population with modern sanitation. We have an elaborate system of sewers transporting wastewater to several treatment works. The works treat the wastewater to internationally-accepted standards before the final effluent is discharged into the sea. We are therefore able to keep our water resources clean and free of contamination. The result is that Singaporeans now enjoy a high standard of environmental public health.

At the same time, my Ministry is responsible for constructing and maintaining an elaborate network of drains that collect and convey rainwater quickly to the sea and reservoirs. As a result, we have eradicated floods from Singapore except for a few small low-lying areas. These areas may still flood when very heavy rains coincide with high tides.

Our sewerage and most drainage infrastructure are buried underground or kept well-blended into the surroundings. They are often not noticed but instead taken for granted. But they play an important part in keeping Singapore clean and free of infectious diseases. The existing Act provides my Ministry with the necessary powers to put the elaborate infrastructures in place, maintain, operate and improve them when necessary.

The Sewerage and Drainage Bill (S&DB) will consist mainly of provisions from its predecessor. It will regulate the construction, maintenance and improvement of sewerage systems and land drainage systems, the discharge of sewage and trade effluent and other related matters. New powers are introduced to prevent damage to or interference with our sewerage and drainage systems and to provide for requirements now specified under some other Act, for example, the Building Control Act.

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

Sewerage (Part III)

Part III of the Bill relates to ENV's powers to construct, maintain, improve and control sewerage systems.

Clause 5 empowers ENV to lay pipes in, under or over any premises, street or building. ENV can require the owner or supplier of any gas, electricity, water or telecommunication services to divert or remove their wire, cable, duct, structure, etc, in the way of any public sewerage system. ENV can also require the owners or occupiers of premises to remove similar obstructions. The cost and expenses of such removal and diversion will be borne by the Government. The clause will facilitate the construction of deep tunnel sewers and allow ENV to serve notices on owners and suppliers of utilities which are now private companies.

Clauses 12 and 15 require any person who intends to construct or alter any sewerage system or sanitary facilities, or erect building or structure over, across or adjacent to any sewer, to obtain a clearance certificate or approval from the Ministry. If he fails to do so, the Ministry may require him to demolish the sewerage system or building, or reinstate the sewer as the case may be.

Clause 14 empowers ENV to enter upon any premises to inspect any sewerage system and open the ground if necessary. Full compensation will be made for any damage done due to such inspection.

Under clause 19, it will be an offence for any person to discharge any sewage, waste matter or effluent into any public sewer improperly or without the written approval of the Ministry. In particular, this will deter the illegal discharge of waste matter into the sewers, eg, from tankers of waste collectors, by simply opening a manhole or an inspection chamber.

Clause 20 disallows the disposal of any matter or substance that is likely to damage the sewer, including sand, earth, cement, brick, wood, and others.

Under clause 21, it will be an offence for any person to damage any public sewer or do any act to render any public sewer to be dangerous or injurious to health or cause a nuisance. This is to ensure that due diligence is exercised when working close to sewers, eg, in construction works.

These clauses enable ENV to safeguard the integrity of the sewerage system and ensure that it is maintained well and functioning properly.

Drainage (Part IV)

Part IV of the Bill relates to ENV's powers to construct, maintain and improve drainage systems.

Clauses 24 and 25 require any person who intends to construct, alter or carry out works that affect any drainage system to obtain a clearance certificate or approval from the Ministry. If he fails to do so, the Ministry may require him to demolish or make good the drainage system to its original condition or carry out such work as may be necessary. This permits ENV to ensure that drains are properly designed and constructed and obstructions to smooth flows are removed.

Under clause 31, it will be an offence to cause any damage to any drainage system. Again, this will ensure that due diligence is taken when working close to drains, eg, during construction works.

Registration, Codes of Practice and Certificate or Approval for Works (Part VI)

Sir, at present, ENV checks plans and approves construction proposals using powers under the Building Control Act. Part VI of the S&D Bill regulates works affecting the sewerage and drainage systems. Clause 33 empowers ENV to establish specifications for both sewerage and drainage works and issue codes of practice for professionals engaged in the design and construction of such works.

Clause 34 states that a clearance certificate or approval is required for any sewerage or drainage work. Clause 35 specifies that any work that requires a clearance certificate shall not be carried out, except under the supervision of a qualified person. Clause 36 spells out the responsibilities of the qualified person for the proper construction and inspection of the work.

These clauses are similar to provisions in the Building Control Act, under which these requirements are currently being carried out. Enforcement (Part VII)

Clauses 39, 40 and 41 give authorised officers powers of investigation and arrest. Clauses 45 and 46 give authorised officers power of entry. These again are similar to the powers in the EPC Bill and facilitate ENV in investigating into cases of infringements against the provisions of the Bill.

Miscellaneous Provisions (Part IX)

Clause 71 provides for offences under the Bill to be compounded for a sum not exceeding $5,000.

Conclusion

Sir, the Bill will enable my Ministry to provide efficient and effective sewerage and drainage systems, and safeguard their integrity once constructed.

The Water Pollution Control and Drainage Act (Chapter 348) will be repealed with the enactment of this Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a young boy, my mother used to encourage me to be diligent in my studies by threatening me with a fate worse than death; that, otherwise I will grow up to be a nightsoil carrier. In those days, there were still many, many homes with the manual bucket system served by nightsoil carriers, and being one probably meant that you were at the lowest rung of the social and job ladder.

Luckily for me, her tactics worked. On the other hand, luckily for Singapore, she was not entirely right in her opinion of the low social status of a career in wastewater management. Otherwise, we would not be at where we are today; with Singaporeans having modern sanitary facilities in their homes and workplaces, a system of well-designed and well-run wastewater treatment facilities and even now planning beyond this to a future of deep tunnel sewerage systems.

Sir, in the 1950s, only buildings in parts of the city and eastern Singapore enjoyed water borne removal of human wastes through sewers. The greater part of the country was still served by the manual bucket system. The transformation from that scenario to where we are today is no small feat. It could only be possible with the entry and retention of top brains and good people in the industry and the Ministry.

For that, we have to thank the people in the Ministry of the Environment. They have done a good job and we should appreciate what they have done for us. For those who do not, I suggest you visit the toilets in the rural areas of some countries in the region. You will then have a good idea of what going to a toilet for most Singaporeans was like in the fifties.

Things have, of course, changed for the better. We are now more demanding in matters of health, especially those of public health. Rightly so, Sir, and that is why this Bill should be supported.

The Bill seeks to ensure that Singaporeans are entitled to modern sanitary facilities with the appropriate wastewater treatment facilities in such a manner that the moment we flush our toilets, all things are taken care of. Except, of course, when the toilet bowl is choked; but then, that is a different story.

Sir, what is exciting, both in the boldness and the scale of the concept, and the proposal, is what the Ministry intends to do with the Deep Tunnel Sewerage Scheme. The benefits from this scheme are many. With this scheme, in which the collection and treatment of wastewater will be deep under ground, air pollution and health risks will be minimised. Land currently used for wastewater treatment plants, including the buffer zones, could be released for other types of development. I am sure the Minister for National Development will be happy with that.

With the freeing of such land for residential and other clean uses, we can expect that residents living near such treatment plants will be overjoyed. Not only would they lose the privilege of having their noses assaulted by the foul smell - my apologies to Professor Low - emanating from the treatment plants; but they can also look forward to an increase in the value of their properties. The Government, too, will benefit by having more land for other uses.

However, I think that the Ministry should also use the opportunity of the DTSS (Deep Tunnel Sewerage Scheme) to separate domestic wastewater from industrial wastewater. Because domestic wastewater is free of heavy metal and other toxins, it is cheaper to treat domestic wastewater for more extensive recycling than what we are doing now. If we consider the amount of water that is used in flushing, the recovery of water from this source is not something to be sniffed at.

As the Minister had explained, clause 5(2)(b) which empowers the Director to tunnel or bore under any premises, street or building, taken together with clause 5(5), will pave the way for the scheme. I envisage that when the scheme commences construction, there will be inconveniences created for some. Sir, for the sake of a better system for all, I would urge all those affected to bear with such inconveniences.

All in all, I think the DTSS is a win-win solution to the management of waste water treatment for the Government as well as for the people. However, I understand that the total cost of the scheme may be in the region of about $6-$7 billion. I would like to hear the Government issuing a categorical statement like what it did for the construction of the MRT - that such costs will be considered as infrastructural costs and eventual charges to consumers will be based on recovery of operating costs, not total costs.

Sir, I am also glad to see the inclusion of clause 5(7) under which compensation is paid to those adversely affected by the construction and the maintenance of public sewerage systems. Sir, it is better than asking aggrieved parties to seek redress under civil law. However, I do not see the need to resort immediately to the courts in case of a dispute, as provided under clause 49.

One must remember that the Government is a huge machinery and going to court may be a matter of routine for many Ministries. On the other hand, those affected may be the average Singaporean with a property which happens to lie in the path of the construction and/or maintenance of public sewerage systems. Sir, if he disputes the compensation amount, to expect him to resort immediately to the courts may be too much to ask for. He may not have the financial means to do so. Moreover, resorting to the courts is still quite foreign to the average Singaporean, especially taking on the Government that he respects. Sir, this is something desirable that the average Singaporean will not want to take on the Government that he respects and we should not encourage Singaporeans to go to the courts at the slightest excuse.

Sir, I think a better way would be to provide for a panel of arbitrators. Those unhappy with the compensation amount can then appeal to this panel for a review. Only when the dispute cannot be resolved at this level, should the conflicting parties resort to the courts. We are moving towards a more civil society with greater mediation between conflicting parties. My suggestion would be in line with such goals. I think the Minister should consider this option.

Sir, the Bill also provides for drainage, both to prevent flooding as well as to collect as much water as possible to augment whatever sources of water we currently have. On this issue, I have a point to make. It concerns the covering or the absence of covering of the drains in our housing estates. Some time ago, the policy was to cover all drains in order to protect the integrity of our water sources, of which the surface runoff water into the drainage system was one such source. Subsequently, to reduce the incidence of mosquito breeding, the covers were removed which is the current policy. My question is this: Does this mean that the protection of the integrity of water from this source is no longer important? Is the current policy the best solution to handle two conflicting demands? Is there no better solution? Perhaps the Minister would like to enlighten us.

Sir, if possible, I would like the former policy of covering the drains be reinstated. Besides protecting the integrity of protecting our water resources, it has also the added advantage of protecting the residents in our housing estates. Since the removal of such covers, accidents of residents, especially the older folks, falling into the drains have increased. Sir, this is especially important in the light of our aging population.

Sir, I am also concerned with clauses 37 and 38. These are new clauses relating to the registration and work of plumbers. Does it mean that, with the enactment of these clauses, one can no longer be a "do-it-yourself" person with regard to simple plumbing repair jobs in the house. For example, would the changing of washers in taps at home or even faucet heads at home by the home owner become offences under this law? Must he always employ a registered person to do such jobs? Sir, could the Minister please clarify on this?

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Mr Ong Kian Min (Pasir Ris): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

However, I would like to raise one issue regarding the installation and use of food waste disposals which at present are not permitted in Singapore. Food waste disposals may be quite familiar to those who have lived abroad. It is a small electro-mechanical appliance that is installed under the kitchen sink and works by pounding food waste into a pulp and then flushing it harmlessly down the drain line into the sewerage system. The food waste is thus pulverized into tiny particles and is often described by manufacturers as having been liquefied. In countries, like the USA, Australia and the UK, such disposals have been in use in households for many years and homemakers find them to be a fast and convenient method of getting rid of messy food wastes.

Sir, I believe the main advantage of using such an appliance is that food waste can be disposed of neatly and quickly, reducing or eliminating the problem of foul smelling garbage which attracts flies, stray animals, rodents and other pests.

From waste management point of view, it reduces the amount of solid waste that has to be collected and transported to landfills or incineration. For example, data from the Plumbing Foundation, City of New York, shows that about 45% of all US households use disposals and more than 100 cities and towns in the USA actually require the installation and use to help reduce the production of solid waste. This should be our aim also as an environmentally conscious and ecologically responsible society. Furthermore, it can lighten the workload of general cleaning workers in the housing estates and bring about a significant improvement in their working conditions. Our Ministry of National Development told me that members of the public had in fact raised their concerns that this aspect seems to have been neglected even while Singapore strives to become a more compassionate and caring society.

Sir, in view of the significant benefits that may be derived from the use of food waste disposals, I wonder why their use has been disallowed in Singapore and under this Bill may not be permitted by virtue of clause 20. In other countries the main concern has been whether the use of such devices could adversely affect the public sewerage systems, especially the older parts of them which may not be able to handle the increased waste load. However, our Ministry of the Environment is planning to spend billions of dollars on various programmes, such as the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System to upgrade our sewerage collection and treatment infrastructure which, I believe, should result in the capability to handle any additional flow of pulverized food waste from the use of disposals. I would therefore like to ask whether the Minister could consider allowing the use of food waste disposals in Singapore.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, first, let me thank both Members for their support and comments.

Sir, let me first address the points raised by Mr Heng Chiang Meng. He commented about the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System. Sir, this is going to be a very important part of our sewerage infrastructure in the coming years and we would like to ensure that the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS) is optimised in terms of its usage and capacity.

Sir, he has asked whether or not the Ministry should be using the opportunity of the DTSS to separate domestic waste water from industrial waste water because domestic waste water is free of heavy metal and other toxins. The intention of Mr Heng's suggestion is that technology is developing in some parts of the world now where waste water can now be treated to such a level that it can be recycled for use in our water system.

Sir, we have also been looking into this. In terms of whether there is a need for us to separate industrial waste water from domestic waste water, our conclusion is that there is no need to. What we are doing now is that we are controlling the pollution at source. We require companies that are producing waste water to ensure that if the waste water contains contaminants which will damage the system they should pre-treat the waste water before discharging into our sewerage system. In any case, the DTSS would have two treatment plants, one in Changi area and the other in Tuas area. The Changi DTSS system would serve mainly domestic premises and therefore the water from that treatment plant would be water which can be recycled if the technology proves feasible.

Sir, PUB and my Ministry will be jointly building a 10,000 cubic metre per day water reclamation pilot plant to try out the concept that Mr Heng has just mentioned. The plant will be commissioned and operational in mid-2000 and after which we will carry out a two-year study to look into the product of that plant and see whether the output can also be used as part of our supply of raw water into our reservoirs and other potable systems.

He has also asked whether the Government intends to treat the DTSS like the MRT, ie, as part of the national infrastructure. Sir, the current sewerage system consists of the waste water conveyance system and the waste water treatment facilities. What we are doing now is that the operating cost of the sewerage system and the cost of building the treatment facilities are recovered but the cost of building the conveyance system is not recovered, ie, the sewers themselves are considered to be part of the national infrastructure and not recovered. With the building of the DTSS, the same procedure will be adopted, ie, the deep tunnel will be considered to be part of the national infrastructure and therefore we will not seek to recover the cost from consumers. We will only seek to recover the operating cost and the waste treatment facility costs.

Mr Heng has brought up clause 5(7) which provides for the Government to resort to the courts in the case of a dispute, and he has asked that perhaps we should examine other avenues of solving the problems before going to the courts. Sir, this clause is not new. It is an existing clause. I can assure the Member that in all the years that it has been operational in the existing Act, we have not had to resort to the courts. Our approach is to resolve the issue of how much cost we have to pay directly with the parties involved and, if necessary, we will seek mediation. We would only resort to the courts as a last resort. So I can assure Mr Heng that his point is well taken and we will keep that in mind.

On the issue of covering of drains in the housing estates, Mr Heng is suggesting that we should go back to the old system where the drains are covered. Sir, basically, the covering of drains involves two objectives. One objective is how do you ensure that the immediate problem of breeding of Aedes mosquitoes and dengue fever can be addressed properly. The other objective is how do we make sure that litter does not get into our water systems. The problem is that while we can cope with the litter problem by covering up the drains, most of the Town Councils have found that covered drains are a problem in terms of cleaning. This is because most drains in housing estates have got very shallow gradients and water does not flow fast enough for the debris to be swept away. Is there a solution to this? I would ask my officials to look into it to see whether some middle ground can be found whereby the bigger part of the drain can be covered up and leaving some other parts open to facilitate cleaning. At the end of the day, the responsibility will really have to fall on the town councils to ensure that those parts that are covered up can be cleaned properly. We are prepared to be flexible but the onus for maintaining the place mosquito-free falls on the town councils. We leave that flexibility to the town councils and we hope that they will use that flexibility wisely.

Mr Heng next talked about clauses 37 and 38. These are new clauses relating to the registration and work of plumbers. While these two clauses are new, the registration and definition of work of plumbers are not new. These currently exist under regulations. What we have done is that we have moved the regulations into the main body of the Bill. Does it mean that do-it-yourself jobs would no longer be possible? Sir, nothing will change because, as I said, these are existing regulations and we would still follow the current practice. The intention is not to prevent simple repair jobs. What we are concerned about is work involving the main system, whether it is the main sanitation system or the main plumbing system, because work to those main systems has an impact on the overall system and therefore we want to be sure that only qualified people are allowed to make any alterations or repairs which can be quite major.

Mr Ong Kian Min talked about food waste disposals or food waste grinders and asked why we are so far behind in not allowing them to be used. I think it is important to understand how this system works and why we cannot allow them to be used in Singapore. The food waste grinders dispose the food waste through the sewerage system by first grinding the solid food into tiny bits, as Mr Ong has mentioned, or to put it more appropriately, it liquefies them. The question is how do we liquefy solid food? You liquefy them by not just grinding the food but using a lot of water to liquefy and to sweep the food particles away.

As Members know, water in Singapore is a very precious resource. We should not be using a lot of water to just grind up food particles and then disposing of them. Secondly, our sewerage system is really not designed with the necessary gradient to take the large amount of grit which the grinders would produce. To do that, we have to also modify the existing sewerage system because otherwise, without the necessary gradient, the food particles would coagulate and choke up the system. Thirdly, because of the additional amount of water and grit that the system has to handle, our sewerage system would have to be expanded at a tremendous cost. The figure mentioned by Mr Heng for the DTSS is between $6 - $7 billion. To modify the system to take the food waste, we just increase it by another 30%, that is, over $2 billion. The current system works very well and it is better that we work with it.

What about the experience of this system in other countries? I have asked that same question when I went to ENV two years ago. When I travel, I see that system is available in many other countries. Why do we not have it here? My staff sought the views and comments of some of the municipal authorities in other countries on their experience. Sydney and Israel, for example, have informed us that, on hindsight, it was not wise to allow its use. Why? High water consumption. When populations are small, it is not a problem. When populations increase and water resources get scarce, this becomes an unnecessary demand on their water resources, and secondly, the high organic loading of the food waste. They regret it, but the system is in place, and they cannot do anything about it. I thank Mr Ong for his inputs but this system is not appropriate for us.

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.