Mr Speaker,
Today I wish to speak on the topic of fire safety in our homes.
When I read about the Wang Fuk Court tragedy in Hong Kong, Grenfell Tower in London, or even the Le Constellation bar fire in Switzerland just a couple of weeks ago—I think: these are world-class cities. Cities with resources. Cities with regulations. And yet, fire found a way.
To me, a fire feels different from other disasters. Earthquakes feel distant. Typhoons feel abstract. But a smoke-filled corridor feels immediate. It feels like it could happen to us. I would venture that many other Singaporeans feel similarly.
Fire fatalities rose from 3 in 2023 to 5 in 2024. By August 2025, we had already recorded at least 8 deaths. While this may be a statistical blip—given the small numbers—it’s a sobering reminder that fire remains an ever present danger.
To be clear, I believe that Singapore has strong fire safety standards. Our HDB flats are designed as fire compartments to delay the spread of fire. Our Singapore Civil Defence Force is well trained and effective. Our building and fire codes are well thought out and comprehensive.
But our good standards make continued vigilance all the more important. I am glad to hear that the Government has started a review of existing fire safety regulations governing building construction and maintenance work. But we must not limit ourselves to just the lessons from Wang Fuk Court, tragic as it was. We must also be cognisant of other hidden dangers, whether they are established practices that have become collective blind spots or new emerging risks that require novel approaches.
Today I want to address three areas where I think we can close important gaps:
First, barriers to egress; second, battery fires we invite into our homes, and third, the widening gap in fire safety standards across generations of flats.
Let me take each in turn.
Part one: The locked gate
Mr Speaker, there’s an anomaly in our Fire Code worth examining.
Clause 2.3.9(a) of the SCDF Fire Code (2023) mandates that exit doors must be openable ‘without the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge’ from the inside. This is sound policy—in a panic, people fumble. Seconds matter. But this clause specifically exempts residential units.
So the standard we apply to malls and offices is deemed optional for our own homes. This is a deliberate policy choice. The question is whether we should revisit it.
For decades, HDB flats came standard with wrought iron entrance gates secured by double cylinder locks, sometimes known as ‘key-to-key’ locks—that is locks that require a key to open from either side.
In 2019, HDB transitioned new BTO projects to mild-steel gates with a single cylinder lock with an interior thumb turn that allows for easier egress in an emergency. Residents within their flats do not need to fumble for a key to get out. These gates are designed such that it is difficult for a prospective intruder to reach around the bars and operate the thumb turn from the outside.
This is a positive development, but it also means that millions of flats still have legacy double cylinder locks. For decades, concerns about intruders overrode fire safety. I understand the logic. But this sometimes comes at a heavy cost.
On 13 August 2025, a fire broke out at Block 106 Jalan Bukit Merah. A couple in their 30s were seen at the kitchen window shouting for help. Neighbours crawled through smoke to reach them but were stopped by the locked entrance gate. Unfortunately the couple were found unconscious by firefighters and later died in hospital. We will never know if the locked gate might have been the decisive factor.
And there’s a compounding factor: we often install additional padlocks on our gates. A big, chunky padlock is a feature on many entrance gates. So now you have two locks. Two keys. Two points of failure. In a smoke-filled flat, fumbling for one key is difficult enough.
Then there are window grilles. Many households install keyed grilles to prevent falls from height. But over time, keys get lost, or the grilles are not designed to be opened at all. Which means when firefighters arrive with a ladder—another potential exit is sealed shut.
What is slightly confounding, is that we are hyper-cognisant of the threats to egress faced by new technologies. We now require digital locks on fire-rated doors to be certified—recognising the egress risk. Yet for established practices like keyed entrance gates and window grilles, we’ve normalised a clear safety deviance.
I would also like to touch briefly on the HIP—the Home Improvement Programme. Right now, as part of the HIP, HDB residents have the option to replace their old gates with a mild steel gate with an interior thumb-turn, much like those installed in new BTOs. Critically, this is a paid, optional improvement, and is not part of the ‘essential improvements’ package. But more worryingly, I believe that HDB continues to offer—and subsidise—the installation of new wrought-iron gates with a double cylinder lock as an alternative option.
That is, we offer residents the option to replace an old gate—that is a fire risk—with a new gate—that is also a fire risk! We are subsidising the installation of new fire hazards in 2026. This isn’t legacy infrastructure we’re managing—it’s a new risk we’re actively creating.
So it would seem, there is an easy path to addressing this risk. Here are my suggestions:
One: Make the installation of a new entrance gate with an interior thumb turn an ‘essential improvement’ under the HIP scheme—fully subsidised, not optional. Wrought iron gates with double cylinder locks should also no longer be offered as an option.
Two: Forbid the pre-installation by developers of gates with double cylinder locks on new-build housing. Easy egress should be the default option. Residents that prefer double cylinder locks will have to make the choice to install them themselves.
Three: Develop a phased replacement plan for legacy gates with double cylinder locks for estates that are not close to a HIP exercise, prioritising older estates.
Four: Incorporate the risks of keyed gates, additional padlocks, and sealed window grilles into public education campaigns on fire safety.
Part two: Battery fires
I will now address the outsize danger of battery fires.
AMD fires—Active Mobility Devices—rose 21.8% in 2024 to 67 cases. Personal Mobility Aids saw a dramatic 120% spike. When we banned PMDs from footpaths, users migrated to modified mobility scooters with dubious batteries. The risk merely transferred.
The new year has just begun, and AMD fires are already hitting the headlines. Just last Friday (9 January 2026), 4 people were hospitalised following a PMA fire in Tampines. As for the fatal Bukit Merah fire from last August. SCDF findings indicated the blaze likely originated from a PMD battery pack in the living room.
Lithium-ion battery fires are different: thermal runaway—a self-sustaining chemical reaction that releases toxic fumes and jet-like flames that breach fire compartments make them extra deadly. The intensity builds in seconds, giving residents little time to react, or fumble for a key. Standard residential fire extinguishers are often useless.
We tell residents not to fight these fires themselves. Yet we expect them to store, charge, and manage these devices in their bedrooms and living rooms.
On my estate walks, residents share their fear of their neighbours’ AMDs being charged right by their front door. A ticking time bomb that may one day trap them in their own homes. Not much can be done to assuage their fears, as such charging practices are, as things stand, by and large permitted.
The reality is this, trying to enforce ‘compliant batteries’ is futile when e-commerce makes cheap imports trivial. The Land Transport and Related Matters Bill tabled today doubles down on regulation, but is unlikely to solve the enforcement gap.
Our current approach treats this as a compliance problem—’use certified batteries’—when it’s fundamentally an infrastructure problem. So these are my proposals:
One: Push for battery swapping systems, like the model made popular by Taiwanese firm Gogoro. Batteries charged in controlled, outdoor environments. This serves both safety and sustainability.
Two: Build public charging hubs for AMDs, perhaps co-located with EV chargers at HDB carparks. Equip them with fire suppression, thermal monitoring, and make them faster and cheaper than home charging. Create the incentive for residents to charge outside of the home.
Three: Implement periodic inspections of AMDs, including batteries, with enforced replacement timelines as batteries degrade.
Once sufficient infrastructure is built out, and residents learn new habits, it may then actually be viable to outlaw the charging of PMDs and PABs within homes entirely—eliminating the safety risk.
I do not believe we can regulate our way out of the risk posed by AMD fires with inspections and battery compliance rules alone. We need that, combined with a push for better infrastructure.
Part three: The equity question
Mr Speaker, fire safety in Singapore varies by when your block was built. Newer BTOs have fire-rated doors, thumb-turn gates, and multiple redundant evacuation routes. Older blocks sometimes have single-staircase designs, enclosed corridors that trap smoke, and densely packed flats.
On 29 July 2025, a fire broke out on the 10th floor of Block 229, Toa Payoh Lorong 8. The fire was so intense it shattered windows and spread vertically to the 11th floor. Flames breached the very compartmentation our flats are designed around.
When firefighters arrived, they discovered that the dry riser was not in proper working condition. Water could not be charged up to the affected floors. Firefighters had to manually haul hoses up 10 storeys via the staircase.
This represents a maintenance challenge. Infrastructure doesn’t just age—it degrades. And testing regimes may not catch all failure modes between annual checks.
Now let me address the single-staircase question.
Block 229 is a 25-storey point block with only a single staircase. Residents trapped above the burning unit had to flee upward—to the 24th floor—because the single staircase near the fire became impassable. Elderly residents had limited options. Some sheltered in place whilst black smoke seeped into their homes. Others relied on neighbours for assistance. Seven people were hospitalised, including a firefighter and a child.
This is not an isolated pattern. Several fires in the last years were in blocks with single-staircase configurations where the most direct escape route was compromised.
And here’s the equity dimension: we have our most elderly, least mobile residents living in buildings with older infrastructure and design standards from an earlier era. Those least able to move quickly in an emergency are disproportionately living in housing with older safety features.
Income can also be a factor, many rental blocks feature densely packed flats and enclosed corridors.
We can do more to protect these residents. So here’s what I propose:
One: Consider ‘Fire Escape Viability’—presence of single-point egress, enclosed corridors—as one factor in VERS selection for redevelopment.
Two: Expand free installation of Home Fire Alarm Devices to all older flats. Prioritise older estates, and those with more elderly residents.
Three: Roll out sprinkler systems in common areas of older blocks systematically, not just as pilots. Prioritise blocks with enclosed corridors, and densely packed flats.
Four: Implement more rigorous inspection regimes for fire-fighting infrastructure—wet risers, dry risers, booster pumps—with published compliance rates and mandatory remediation timelines.
Five: Provide Town Councils with clearer enforcement mandates and more monetary resources and support to maintain safety standards and keep fire safety infrastructure in good working order.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, let me bring this together.
I have discussed three areas where we can do better: barriers to egress, battery fires we invite into our homes, and widening gaps across generations of flats.
Safety should not depend on when your block was built, whether you can afford an upgrade, or which estate you call home.
Singapore has built a strong fire safety system. Our HDB flats are well-designed. Our SCDF is world-class. Our fire codes are comprehensive. We continue to improve with each new development.
Our task now is to ensure that excellence reaches every home—and that we continue this commitment regardless of age or estate maturity.
Make fire safety non-negotiable—not optional, not estate-dependent, not income-dependent. Standard for every home, every corridor, every Singaporean.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
