Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that this bill arrives at the right time, and I welcome the government’s move to improve fire safety in Singapore at this time. There has been an upwards trend in fire incidents in recent years, which is worrying. Fire injuries rose from 80 in 2024 to 94 in 2025, and fire fatalities from 5 to 6 over the same period. More alarming still, in the short span from 31 July to 1 September this year alone, five lives have already been lost to fire incidents. Behind each of these figures is a family and a home. That is the reality we should keep in mind as we consider the measures before us today.
Sir, I note that both sets of amendments further empower Government officials to regulate and to prosecute offences relating to the provision and installation of fire safety products used in our shelters, and to sanction those who obstruct or neglect our firefighting infrastructure. I do not think any Member in this House would disagree with these objectives. Where lives are at stake, the relevant authorities must be able to act swiftly and effectively.
I support that objective. But precisely because these are powers of enforcement and prosecution, I would like to seek several clarifications from the Minister so that this House can be satisfied that the powers are both necessary and proportionate.
The Shelter amendments — Sections 4J and 4K
Sir, my first area of concern relates to the new Sections 4J and 4K.
Section 4J provides for an authorised officer to obtain a warrant from a Magistrate before entering a property. That is unobjectionable and is exactly the safeguard one would expect. My concern is with Section 4K, which permits entry without a warrant, and which sets out the conditions under which a warrant may be dispensed with.
This is not unprecedented. Clauses exist in other legislation which empower officials to enter premises without a warrant where the conditions for it are met. What is less clear to me is why the case has been made out for it here, in the specific context of fire shelters within residential or commercial premises.
The key condition for entry without warrant is “imminent danger affecting public safety” as determined by the Commissioner. But under the proposed amendments, entry without warrant seems to have a preemptive purpose. Therefore I would ask the Minister if there have been previous cases where the Ministry or SCDF determined afterwards that damage could have been prevented or mitigated if inspection officers had not needed a warrant to deal with uncooperative owners of premises. Are there other operational gaps that have been identified which directly relate to the need for a warrant by inspection officers?
Entering a person's property without a warrant is a significant power, and the House should grant it with a clear understanding of why it is needed.
The Fire Safety Act amendments — Clauses 11 and 12
Sir, I turn to the amendments to the Fire Safety Act, which fall broadly into two categories.
The first concerns obstruction of our firefighting infrastructure and facilities. The second concerns activities relating to chemicals, absorbing everything previously covered by the Chemical Weapons Act, and going somewhat further besides. On the chemicals side, I would welcome from the Minister a clear explanation of what is new in this Bill beyond consolidation. Specifically, what conduct becomes an offence under this Act that was not already caught before. That clarity matters to industry and the public, so that they know precisely where the line now falls.
But it is the first category, and in particular Clauses 11 and 12 specifying the offences, on which I wish to dwell.
If I read these clauses correctly, the concern is that maintenance of dry risers and other firefighting infrastructure is, in some cases, not being kept to the standard it should be. That is a fair concern, and one worth addressing squarely.
The House will recall that in several recent fires, SCDF reported that it could not get the dry risers to work, and that its officers were forced to carry hoses up the stairs to fight the fire by hand. This was especially unfortunate because the maintenance records indicated that those very risers had been serviced and pressure-tested and were found to be in order. That gap between a record that says "serviced" and a riser that fails at the moment of truth is exactly where lives can be lost. A dry riser that does not deliver water when SCDF arrives is not a paperwork failure; it is a potential life-threatening failure.
So if Clauses 11 and 12 are the Government's answer to that gap, I am inclined to support them. But I would ask the Minister to clarify three things.
First, how will these provisions fix responsibility for firefighting infrastructure that sits in common property? Much of this infrastructure including dry risers is not maintained by the owner of the land, but by the party having charge, management and control of the common areas. In the case of an HDB estate, the Town Council and its appointed servicing contractor. I would therefore ask the Minister to make clear whether liability under these clauses attaches to the owner, to the occupier or managing agent in day-to-day control, or to the contractor whose certification did not hold up. This is important so that the offence falls on the party genuinely in control, and not on whoever is easiest to charge.
Second, what will the Government do to ensure that "regularly maintained" means actually functional — that servicing regimes are tested against real performance, and not merely logged in a register?
Third, I would ask the Minister to clarify the reach of the new obstruction provisions in the common-corridor context. Obstruction that hinders escape is already a specified fire hazard, and Town Councils control corridor clutter through by-laws. But do these amendments now also capture obstruction that hinders firefighting, for example, household items a resident leaves along a common corridor that impede our firefighters' access. And if so, where does responsibility fall: on the resident who placed the item, or on the Town Council that permitted or failed to remove it?
Mr Speaker, in Malay please.
Summary in Malay
Tuan Speaker, saya menyokong penuh Rang Undang-Undang ini demi meningkatkan keselamatan kebakaran di Singapura. Walaupun begitu, saya ingin meminta beberapa penjelasan penting daripada Menteri bagi memastikan kuasa penguatkuasaan ini adalah perlu dan setimpal.
Pindaan Perlindungan – Seksyen 4J & 4K
Pertanyaan saya tertumpu kepada dua kawasan utama, iaitu yang pertama, berkenaan kemasukan rumah tanpa waran atau surat kuasa. Seksyen 4K membenarkan perkara ini atas alasan “bahaya kritikal”. Dengan peruntukan ini, saya ingin meminta Menteri menjelaskan sama ada terdapat kes terdahulu atau jurang operasi yang telah menghalang pegawai daripada melakukan tugas mereka dengan efektif.
Pindaan Akta Keselamatan Kebakaran – Fasal 11 & 12:
Kedua, berkenaan pindaan kepada Akta Keselamatan Kebakaran. Mengenai bahan kimia, saya ingin Menteri menjelaskan dengan lebih lanjut apa yang baharu di dalam Rang Undang-Undang ini, selain daripada penggabungan undang-undang semata-mata.
Dalam kes kebakaran pula, baru-baru ini terdapat kejadian yang menunjukkan sistem dry riser gagal berfungsi walaupun ia baru sahaja diservis. Saya ingin meminta Menteri menjelaskan di manakah letaknya tanggungjawab atau liabiliti apabila perkara seperti ini berlaku – Majlis Bandaraya, ejen pengurusan, atau kontraktor? Tambahan lagi, bagaimanakah pihak pemerintah akan memastikan infrastruktur seperti sistem dry riser yang disebut tadi benar-benar berfungsi? Dan bagi halangan yang disebabkan oleh barangan di koridor awam, adakah penduduk atau Majlis Bandaraya yang perlu dipertanggungjawabkan?
Conclusion
Sir, I began by saying that this Bill arrives at the right time, and I stand by that. The threats we face do not wait for our legislation to catch up.
Nevertheless, I have raised questions on Sections 4J and 4K, and on Clauses 11 and 12, not to obstruct the Bill but to strengthen it and to make sure that the powers we grant today are necessary, proportionate and properly targeted. If the Minister can address these points, I will be glad to give the Bill my full support.
Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications sought, I support the Bill.
