SMOKING (CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND SALE OF TOBACCO) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Health (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks to make amendments to the Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) Act (Chapter 309 of the 1994 Revised Edition).

Background

Sir, the fact that smoking is addictive and that it causes lung cancer, heart disease and other fatal diseases in smokers is not disputed, not even by the cigarette manufacturers. It is estimated that 50% of long-term smokers will die prematurely in their middle age without reaching the life expectancy of 76 years, a loss of about 22 years of life. Yet, new smokers, especially the youth, are attracted to the habit and become addicted. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that about half of those who experiment with smoking during their adolescence, will become regular smokers.

[Mdm Deputy Speaker (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) in the Chair]

5.10 pm

The Minister for Health (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): The Singapore Youth Tobacco Survey in 2000 showed that in Singapore, 11% of the respondents aged 13-17 had smoked on at least one day in the preceding month, while 4% of these youths smoked at least 20 days in the preceding month.

Smoking rates in Singapore had dropped to a low of 14% in 2001, from 18% in 1992, putting Singapore among the countries with the lowest smoking rates in the world. Nonetheless, the National Smoking Control Programme continues to actively work towards a smoke-free lifestyle among all Singaporeans.

The basic tenet of the National Smoking Control Programme is a multi-pronged approach to control smoking. This includes public education, community involvement, legislation, enforcement, fiscal measures, and the provision of smoking cessation services. In order to support this approach, the legislation on smoking is reviewed and updated regularly so as to keep up with changes in social trends as well as to adopt the best practices from other countries. The Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) (Amendment) Bill therefore comprises a total of seven amendments to the Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now highlight the major new provisions that are being introduced in this Bill.

The first change is to prohibit the sale of cigarette packs containing fewer than 20 sticks of cigarettes. The rationale for prohibiting the sale of cigarette packs containing fewer than 20 sticks of cigarettes is to discourage the youths from starting to smoke. Studies have shown that most smokers start smoking during adolescence. Many start by experimenting with one or a few sticks of cigarettes before they start smoking regularly.

Cigarette packs containing less than 20 cigarettes are more affordable to the young smokers as they cost less. For instance, the average cost of a pack of 10 cigarettes is $3.50, about half the price of a pack of 20 cigarettes, which costs about $6.50. The smaller packs can also be concealed more easily from teachers and parents.

According to a WHO publication, cigarette packs containing less than 20 sticks are, in fact, a marketing strategy by the tobacco industry to specifically target young smokers, who are experimenting with cigarettes and have less purchasing power. Australia, Canada, certain states in the United States of America and Thailand have also banned the sale of small packs with fewer than 20 cigarettes to discourage experimentation by young people.

The second change is to increase the fine quantum of underaged smoking offences from $50 and $100 for the first and subsequent offences, to a flat $300 ceiling.

In spite of the ongoing national smoking control efforts, the trend of smoking among youths aged 18 years and below, is still a cause for concern. From a legislative perspective, the current system of penalties for underaged smokers does not pose a sufficient deterrent effect and is also administratively cumbersome.

Under section 11(1) of the Act, an underaged youth caught smoking, chewing, buying or possessing any tobacco product is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $50, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $100. The existing amount of fines is not sufficient to deter the majority of youth offenders who can generally afford the amounts imposed. The revision of the current penalty towards a flat $300 quantum would thus have a sufficient deterrent effect on the underaged youth.

The third change is to include an enabling clause to provide for the imposition of conditions when compounding offences.

Currently, underaged youths caught smoking are not required to fulfill any conditions other than to face a fine of $50 or $100 upon conviction. This enabling clause will allow conditions to be imposed when compounding offences under the Act. For example, underaged smoking offenders and their parents or guardians could be conditionally required to attend smoking cessation counselling in order to have their offences compounded. Recognising that peer pressure is the main reason why many youths pick up smoking, this measure provides an excellent opportunity to communicate to both the youths and their parents not only the dangers of smoking, but also equip the youths with life skills to enable them to quit and stay smoke-free.

Our survey shows that almost half of our young smokers have either one or both parents who smoke. The compulsory participation of parents in the counselling process will also enable the counsellors to motivate these parents to quit smoking and serve as positive role models for their children. This example illustrates how the enabling clause allows both enforcement and education to work hand in hand towards combating smoking among the young.

The fourth change is to include the listing of other constituents in addition to tar and nicotine, in cigarettes imported or sold in Singapore. The current Act prescribes the maximum allowable limits for tar and nicotine contained in the emissions of cigarettes imported and sold in Singapore. However, in addition to tar and nicotine, cigarettes contain many other harmful and cancer-causing constituents. One such example is carbon monoxide, normally found in car exhaust fumes.

Currently, Canada's legislation requires cigarette packs to list the amount of tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, benzene, hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde found in cigarette emissions.

The Act will be amended to require the listing and its allowable limits of constituents other than tar and nicotine. This measure serves to inform consumers about the poisonous and toxic substances that are found in tobacco products and serves as a deterrent to some people to smoke.

The fifth change is to extend the current licensing of tobacco retailers to include importers and distributors of tobacco products. At present, the licensing of tobacco retailers provides a system of monitoring and regulation of the sales of tobacco products at the retail end. However, there remain certain aspects of product compliance that may not be within the direct influence of the retailer. Examples of such product compliance include the tar and nicotine limits of cigarettes and mandatory health warning labelling requirements of tobacco products.

Instead, greater accountability for ensuring such compliance with the licensing authority's requirements should be placed on the industry source rather than the small retail shops. This would ensure, for example, that the Health Warning Labelling regulations are properly implemented at the distribution stage before the products are supplied to retailers. In addition, this will also help to tighten the distribution of tobacco products to only licensed retailers.

In order to be consistent with the approach that regulation of tobacco should begin at the source of the tobacco supply chain, the current licensing of tobacco retailers will be extended to include importers and distributors of tobacco products. In this manner, the source of the tobacco trade can be better monitored and regulated.

The sixth change is to allow the serving of notice to attend Court, to be done by other means. The current Act does not have specific provisions on the serving of summonses and notices. In the absence of such provisions, the Health Sciences Authority has to rely on Chapter V of the Criminal Procedure Code on the serving of such notices. This provision requires that such notices be delivered in person by an authorised officer, a time consuming and resource intensive method. In comparison, the Housing and Development Board has the option to issue notices via registered post, as provided for in the Housing and Development Act.

A similar provision will be incorporated into the Act in order to allow the serving of notices to be made by other more efficient means such as the method of registered post.

The final change is to refine the powers of investigation for authorised officers under the Act. In the course of investigating offences under the Act, the investigating officer authorised by the Health Sciences Authority may be required to obtain statements from persons involved in the investigation. Similar to the option available to the National Environment Agency, such powers of investigation are provided for in the Environmental Public Health Act.

A similar provision will be made in the Act to facilitate the investigations of offences under the Act by the Health Sciences Authority.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Health believes that a multi-pronged approach is needed to encourage non-smokers to stay smoke-free and smokers to give up the smoking habit. The amendments to the Act will complement the existing strategies, to ensure that the legislative measures remain relevant to the social climate and on par with the best practices from other countries.

Madam, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of the Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) (Amendment) Bill.

According to the World Health Organisation, smoking kills three and a half million people worldwide every year and this works out to be about 10,000 deaths each day. Smoking can cause cancer, heart disease and stroke. Seven Singaporeans die every day from smoking-related diseases and about 15% of the population still smoke daily.

Cigarette smoking has been identified as the single most avoidable cause of death. It is common knowledge that smoking kills, but yet, the size of the hole it burns in the pockets of smokers and non-smokers alike remains huge. In 1999, $871 million went up in smoke with 3.23 billion cigarettes consumed. A smoker with a daily habit of 20 sticks will end up paying $68,000 over 30 years, and this is not considering the potential medical costs needed for smoking-induced related diseases. In light of this, measures to further reduce the smoking habit are therefore most timely and welcome.

Non-smokers, children in particular, also suffer the ill effects from cigarette smoke. Therefore, smoking in public areas that affects non-smokers should be further expanded to protect the non-smokers. Madam, I would like to support the call to ban smoking at bus-stops, as commuters have no choice but to wait around for their buses to arrive.

There are many Western countries with Anti-smoking Activists Groups; the one in America is especially active in their fight of tobacco use especially amongst their youth and in lobbying tobacco companies to support community and sports programmes for their youth. There is no such Anti-smoking Activists Group now in Singapore and the initiation of such a group should be encouraged by the Ministry of Health. It is likely that larger business corporations, especially the tobacco companies, do not contribute as much to our community and sports programmes because we do not have such an Anti-smoking Activists Group. Madam, I believe that these companies should be the biggest donors to sports promotion programmes in aid of our youth and anti-cancer movements. This is especially so when the young people are their biggest and growing customer base and when cancer is the leading cause of death and the third leading cause of hospitalisation in Singapore. An Anti-smoking Activists Group can champion this and ameliorate the rising incidence of cancers - lung cancer especially.

Amendment to clause 11 of this Bill aims to ban the sale of smaller packs containing fewer than 20 sticks of cigarettes to make the habit more expensive to pick up or sustain. This is targetting especially the young people who presumably have less money to spend. If they see people around them smoking and if cigarettes are cheap and readily available to them, the tendency to smoke would be higher. A recent study in the British Medical Journal found that even one puff for those aged 12 to 13 could turn them into addicts because their brains are still at the developmental stage and the younger they start, the more likely the habits are going to stay with them. However, the argument against bigger-pack cigarettes is that the young smokers may encourage and persuade others to share and split the cost, thereby expanding the number of smokers. Bigger packs also do not help those who are trying to quit or to reduce smoking in terms of cost and in terms of temptation with a pack of 20 compared to a pack of 10.

Legislation must result in the desired outcomes and getting the public better informed on regulations and stricter enforcement of the rules would be necessary here. Shopkeepers selling individual cigarettes claiming ignorance and selling cigarettes to those below 18 must be firmly penalised.

I would like to support the call for new measures to scare young smokers off the habit with gory pictures. Section 16 of the present Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) Act provides for the implementation of labelling. Will the Ministry of Health draw up an amendment to the Labelling Regulation to impose requirement on the printing of gory pictures portraying health hazard? Gory pictures may work at first but it is likely, Madam, that people become immune to the same pictures after sometime. Hence, to be more effective, these gory pictures should be changed regularly. It will be good if the pictures depict the different diseases caused by smoking: consider, for example, pictures of blackened lungs, cancerous lung growths, bloodied brains, brain tumours, fat-choked arteries, dead heart muscles, rotting teeth and mouth diseases. This way, not only do we get the scaring effect, we also create more public awareness on the side effects of smoking.

About 11% of teenagers from Secondary 1 through to Secondary 4 light up at least once a month, according to a survey done a couple of years ago. It seems that peer pressure is an important influencing factor. The Ministry of Health, in partnership with the schools, should take increased measures to address this. The anti-smoking message should be innovative and interesting lest the students take them for granted. The Health Promotion Board can step up efforts to empower our young people with life skills to make sensible health and lifestyle choices.

Madam, many people do not fathom the dangers of smoking and, therefore, there should be more public education on the various diseases caused by smoking. Some schools, supported by the Health Promotion Board, have started anti-smoking clinics. I would like to see all secondary schools having such clinics where students train to spread the smoke-free message through a special peer-leader training programme, to take lead in the school's anti-smoking efforts and to offer peer counselling. On the fact that female smokers have increased two percentage points to eight percent, the recent report by Canadian scientists that women who start smoking when they are teenagers are 70% more likely to develop breast cancer than non-smokers should be publicised.

The prevalence and increasing incidence of smoking in teenagers is most disturbing. Mdm Deputy Speaker, we must do more to help this group. Many people smoke because their environment influences them. They are much more likely to smoke if there are smokers surrounding them, or if their favourite film stars smoke. Most teen smokers think smoking makes them look cool. Therefore, steps must be taken to project a "smoke-free" lifestyle as cool and socially desirable. Teenage idols and celebrities should be roped in more to promote this message.

Madam, may I ask the Ministry of Health to consider subsidising nicotine-free pills like the new drug called Zyban, nicotine patches and a variety of other devices that help smokers quit the smoking habit? Such products should be given free to school children to help them quit smoking. Britain and some European countries supplied the new drug, Zyban, since the year 2000 and their Departments of Health said that the money was well-spent because the drug was particularly effective. May I urge the Ministry of Health to study their experience promptly in order to do likewise in Singapore. 5.30 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak both as a Member of Parliament and a concerned mother of young children in view of the troubling statistics among the youths on smoking.

While it is commendable that Singapore has one of the lowest smoking rates in the world, with the national smoking rate dropping from 15% in 1998 to 14% in 2001, smoking among the young between the age groups of 18 and 24 years has held steady at 16% between 1998 and 2001, despite an aggressive campaign against smoking. This is in contrast to the declines in rates for those aged between 25 and 44 years (from 15% to 14%) and those aged between 45 and 64 years (from 15% to 12%).

The results of a school-based youth tobacco survey carried out in 2000 are even more disturbing. The survey found that one in four students had tried smoking before, and one in 10 had smoked at least one day in the past month, even though they are prohibited by law from buying as well as smoking cigarettes as they are under 18 years old. Although many of the 26% respondents who had tried smoking may have done so out of curiosity, seasoned anti-smoking campaigners will confirm that, in many instances, this is how the habit is initiated.

In 1993, the then Minister for Health, Mr Yeo Cheow Tong, had noted that about half of the smokers had taken up the habit before the age of 18 years old. In fact, a grassroots volunteer of my constituency, who is a smoker, told me that most of his smoking friends had picked up the habit when they were young. He himself had picked up the habit when he was still in school. He further noted that he had observed an increase in the number of young smokers and he himself was worried for his two young sons. It is worthwhile to note that even he, who is a smoker, is now worried for his young sons whom he fears will take up the habit.

In July 2002, in response to a question posed by my fellow Parliamentarian, Mdm Halimah Yacob, the Minister of State for Health, Dr Balaji Sadasivan, had reported that a total of 131 retailers had been caught selling or providing tobacco products to those aged 18 years or under since 1993. This works out to an average of some 14-15 cases per year over a nine-year period, which, as Mdm Halimah had noted, and I concur, is very small.

In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister how many youths aged below 18 years have been caught for smoking, buying and/or possessing cigarettes since the Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) Act came into force in 1993. If the numbers have been increasing over the years, what punishments were meted out to the offenders? Additionally, what proportion of these offenders are repeat offenders?

Madam, I would further like to ask the Minister what mechanisms have been put in place to allow for effective enforcement of the law to prevent the sale of cigarettes to those aged below 18 years as well as the purchase, possession and/or use of cigarettes by this group. I would like to urge for greater vigilance in the enforcement of the law, as this would surely serve as one of the more effective deterrents to our young against lighting up.

The neighbourhood police could work with the RCs and the schools in order to be more effective in locating retailers who contravene the Act as well as in flushing out underaged smokers. In some of my block visits, residents have informed me that they have seen students in school uniform smoking at staircases and common corridors on the top floors of HDB blocks where there is very little pedestrian traffic. We have, of course, fed this back to the police and the schools concerned. Regular policing of such areas as well as stalls that may be selling cigarettes to underaged smokers would help alleviate the problem.

Madam, I note that the Bill seeks to further hinder the young from smoking by banning the sale of cigarette packs with less than 20 cigarettes, as well as by increasing the fine payable by those aged below 18 years who are caught buying, possessing and/or smoking cigarettes to $300 for any offence, up from $50 to a maximum of $100 in the existing Act.

Feedback from some members of the public regarding the sale of larger packs to make smoking more expensive to pick up and sustain, particularly amongst the young, is that this may not be effective, as the young could simply share it with their friends or be enticed to smoke even more, whilst others may simply be indifferent to the higher price of a larger pack.

Nonetheless, the Health Promotion Board had noted that New Zealand had experienced some success in deterring young smokers when it adopted a similar measure. It is further noted that according to a World Health Organisation study on smoking behaviour, first-time buyers usually try smaller packs initially. Although the effectiveness of this measure to thwart the young from smoking may be minimal, I would still support this move. This is because any measure that can further discourage the young from lighting up is clearly worth a try and would add weight to the host of measures that have been instituted, including an aggressive anti-smoking education campaign.

I am also pleased to note that clause 8 of the Bill provides that underaged offenders as well as their parents or guardians can be asked to attend counselling sessions. I feel that this, in combination with a higher fine which is now proposed, is more meaningful than just a fine. This is because, since most youths are not in the labour force, the fines would either be picked up by their parents or they may be indifferent if they come from wealthy families and have been given generous allowance.

However, I would like to ask the Minister what format such counselling sessions would take and for how long the sessions would be, as one would suspect that a one-off counselling session of a few hours may not be effective for reformative purposes. Additionally, I would like to suggest that some form of community order be instituted.

The young offender could be required to attend a number of sessions after school, say, on a Saturday, where he could be counselled and taught the hazards of smoking, constructive use of leisure time, health alternatives to de-stress and so on. Such sessions could help to reform the offenders and, at the same time, act as a deterrent, since it would deprive them of some of their leisure time outside of school.

Madam, it has been reported that the strategy for increasing tobacco taxes has failed for the first time this year, as a turf war between tobacco companies had brought prices down. As affordability is reported to be a major deterrent to smoking, I would like to propose that tobacco taxes be further raised, so as to negate the impact of any price cuts by tobacco companies. Any additional revenue generated from a further increase in tobacco tax could be channelled to cancer research or any other programme related to the fight against smoking. This would then clearly dispel any notion that the Government is increasing taxes on tobacco for revenue. In fact, I would like to mention that my grassroots volunteer who is a smoker said that having higher taxes and hitting him harder in the pocket could spur him to try harder to stop smoking.

Madam, whilst the national smoking rate has declined since the Act was implemented in 1993, smoking amongst the young remains a major concern. Hence, we must not spare any effort in the fight to deter the young from taking up this habit - from making it less affordable and less convenient to smoke, to persistent education and vigilant enforcement.

Madam, with this, I support the Bill.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Madam, like others in this House, I am concerned that the percentage of smokers aged between 18 and 24 has remained unchanged since 1998. It now stands at 16% of the age group and, more disturbingly, the female smokers among them has increased 2 percentage points to 8%. It is critical to discourage the youngsters from smoking. And, as the Minister noted, studies have shown that someone who starts smoking earlier and younger finds it harder to quit later. It also increases their risk of getting diseases like lung cancer earlier. And for the women smokers, it would also affect the health of their babies as well.

The Government hopes to discourage smoking among the young by removing the smaller packets of cigarettes from the market. Only 20-stick packs or larger will be available and these are more expensive.

I would like to raise two points. First, many young Singaporeans now get generous pocket money from parents. A few extra dollars will not make much of a difference, unlike those in other countries where a study cited shows that it worked in New Zealand. An average pack of 20 sticks now sells for $6.50. This is akin to a cup of Starbucks coffee and a slice of cake. It is easily affordable to most yuppy kids in Singapore. I suggest that if the Government is serious about discouraging them to smoke by using this method, it should raise the price of cigarettes even more. It can do this by increasing the cigarette excise duties and increasing the number of smoking cessation programmes at the same time.

Second, it is widely recognised that peer pressure is one reason why youngsters smoke. In my view, much has to do also with where they tend to hang out with their peers these days, to look cool and to look fashionable. If you walk into some of our pubs and clubs, chances are that they are smoke-filled and through the haze, you would see young women dangling cigarettes in their hands.

Studies in other countries have shown that girls apparently smoke in order to attract men, while boys smoke to appear mature. The club scene in Singapore, I am told, is quite colourful and exciting. And many clubs and pubs are trying to reel in the young girls with Ladies' Nights, and by having a lower age entry requirement for women than for men. The strategy is that if you get in the young girls, the men will follow. But these are environments which make smoking appear fashionable and cool. Clubs have a peer pressure effect on impressionable girls to smoke in order to belong to the in-crowd and to appear more attractive. A random survey of adult pubs and clubs in Singapore shows that many allow women as young as 18-20 in, but often impose a higher age requirement for men, usually above 23. For instance, at Madam Wong's, you need to be only 20 if you are a woman to get into the club, but you have to be 23 if you are a man. At Club Eden, the entry age requirement for women is 21; for men, it is 24. At Double O, the entry age requirement for women is 22; for men, it is 25.

I am concerned about this because these 20 to 21-year-old women are more impressionable, more susceptible to peer pressure and are less mature than the older men in these clubs. Indeed, I hear that it is not uncommon to see older men lighting up the cigarettes of young girls in some clubs. So I do not think bigger packs of cigarettes will work. As I see it, we can either bar these girls from environments which encourage smoking, such as these pubs or clubs, or clean up these environments that presently promote the image that it is cool to smoke.

I will not go so far as to call for a ban on smoking in bars, pubs and discos, at least not for now. But I would call for a higher age entry requirement for the women, to be at least on par with the present requirement for the men. However, this is left pretty much to the discretion of the clubs and pubs right now. Can the Government do something about this? The Government should also, at the same time, rope in the pubs and clubs in its No Smoking Campaign.

Finally, I understand that the Government is taking a multi-pronged approach to discourage youngsters from smoking - from legislation to public education and applying peer pressure to emphasising that staying smoke-free is cool, using stars as models. While I support this, I would like to caution against a heavy-handed approach, as it would probably backfire. Many youngsters smoke because of peer group pressure or to cock a snook at authority. They are biologically programmed to take risk. The more the Government tells them not to smoke or that they would die earlier if they do and die from horrible diseases, the more they find it exciting to smoke. The danger with a heavy-handed approach is that smoking will become a symbol of youthful rebellion. Hence, I would argue that if it is an uphill task getting the message across to the young, then let us put more focus about tackling the environments which influence them to smoke.

Madam, I support the Bill.

Dr Tan Boon Wan: Madam, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I rise to support this Bill.

Smoking is an expensive and harmful habit. Like the rest of the speakers, I am particularly perturbed to see young people taking on this habit. So I think it is a good idea to sell cigarettes in packets of 20, instead of the present small packets of 10 cigarettes. I now realise that you can buy drinks in Starbucks with a piece of cake for that amount. So, it is not too difficult, but if by this move we make it more difficult for even some of our young to smoke, then it would have served its purpose.

I am also glad to see that the Bill has closed the loopholes of retailers breaking up packets and selling cigarettes in sticks. The stiff penalties legislated make it not worthwhile for retailers to do so, and I support the stiff penalties proposed.

I have a friend who was a heavy smoker. When he was asked if he knew that he was putting his life at risk, the reply was that, statistically, his life would be shortened by just a few minutes, and what was that compared to a lifespan of over, as the Minister said, 76 years. If a person can will the last few minutes to the very end of his life, then there is no problem. To cut the story short, he contracted cancer in his early 40s and had one of his lungs removed. He is now a wiser man and has stopped smoking. But at what a price! And even at that, he is one of the luckier ones.

Madam, I strongly support the Bill.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mdm Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to thank all four MPs who rose to speak in support of the Bill. This is a rare occasion for me where I am told I am not going far enough, and I need to be pushed forward.

As I said in my Second Reading speech, the anti-smoking programme is a multi-faceted programme. We must pursue different strategies and from different angles. What we are discussing today is really the legislative changes to make it possible for us to keep the smoking rates in Singapore under control. For the items specifically under discussion today, the issue about smaller packs, I accept the different views. Whether it is effective or not, I think it is worth trying. And I thank those who support it on that basis too.

Dr Lily Neo suggested setting up an anti-smoking activist group. I think that is an excellent suggestion. We will pass it on to HPB and to the Committee overseeing this and see how they can prompt or encourage such a group to be set up.

We also need more enforcement, a point made by all three speakers. We need greater vigilance, enforcement of the rules, particularly against retailers who sell to underaged smokers, and also on the offenders themselves. While in the Bill we have asked for increase in fines and also introduce counselling, the changes will not be effective if these are not enforced. So I assure the House that with these additional powers and the existing powers, we are taking and intending to take stronger enforcement of these rules.

On the suggestion of labelling, whether to provide more graphic or pictorial warnings, this is under consideration. It is proven to be quite effective in other countries. We intend to also review this and introduce this in Singapore.

Dr Lily Neo also suggested that we subsidise nicotine-free pills in our Smoking Cessation Clinics. This is something that I will refer to the Committee to look at.

Dr Amy Khor and Ms Irene Ng both advocated very strongly that the tobacco tax be further increased. Let me assure the House that it is the Government's policy to continuously increase the tobacco tax to keep up at least with the purchasing power of Singaporeans. But, as Dr Amy Khor has observed, this year, while we raise the tobacco tax by 20%, the cigarette manufacturers lowered the cigarette prices, thereby negating the impact of the tobacco tax. But this is a war that we will continue to fight. It is not fought over one year.

Ms Irene Ng raised several suggestions on how to influence the environment that youths patronise, to discourage them from smoking. I was particularly intrigued by her comment that young girls smoke to attract man, and boys smoke to look mature. I remember, some years ago, watching an advertisement which shows a lady smoking and the caption saying: "Do you want to kiss an ashtray?" So, I am not sure whether a lady smoking really attracts man.

Anyway, I think we agree with all the speakers that we have a big battle ahead. It may be cynical, but the cigarette manufacturers are really targeting at the young. They know that smoking is addictive and they know that the strategy is to get people hooked onto cigarettes. I think this is a very cynical strategy but, unfortunately, it is the truth, and we have to combat it at every level. As you can see from the amendments that we put into the Bill, our effort is really strongly targeted at the young people to try and persuade them not to get started on the first puff.

I thank Members for their support and their many suggestions. We will take these up with the Committee looking into this. And I can assure you that these suggestions will be followed up.

Dr Lily Neo: Mdm Deputy Speaker, could the Minister also address my question on the ban of smoking at bus-stops? Could he also enlighten us on the anti-smoking efforts in schools, whether more can be done, and what else can be done?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: As part of our strategy, we have taken anti-smoking in schools quite seriously. We have conducted talks. We have brought role models, people in the media, people in the entertainment industry, who have agreed to help us in this campaign. So they go to the schools and they serve as role models, and they try to persuade young Singaporeans not to smoke. So that is part of the strategy. We try to strike a sensible balance, as Ms Irene Ng mentioned, when dealing with the young. I think you have seen our reply in one of the newspapers. Dealing with the young, we do not really want to put them off. So you have got to strike this balance. I believe the Committee looking into this has attempted to do so.

On the various suggestions about banning additional places, this is something that we work closely with the Ministry of the Environment, whether it is banning of smoking in pubs or in other places, bus stops and other areas. This is something that we continuously take up with the Ministry of the Environment.

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to follow up on the query on the counselling sessions mentioned in clause 8. Could the Minister kindly elaborate on what would be involved in that process?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: I am afraid I do not have the details. It is also something that Dr Amy Khor raised. This is something that the HPB and the various committees will do on their own.

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang: Just a quick follow-up. Is it possible that in the suggestions on counselling, in order for it not to be counter-productive, due consideration is taken into getting the underlying causes for teenagers to be easily influenced by peers and to have some form of self-discipline that there would be self-awareness, sensitivity training provided for them to understand how to be assertive, how to resist peer temptation and also the kind of inner self-discipline? Because it appears that parents will also be involved. Similarly on the problems with drug abuse, if we do not tackle those underlying causes, then some of these measures could be just symptomatic treatment and not really that effective and, in fact, become counter-productive.

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: I thank the Member for his advice. We will definitely have properly trained counsellors to do this, and I am sure they will do the right thing.

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 Lim Hng Kiang].

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