Mr Speaker,
In January, I spoke in this House about fire safety in our homes. It remains a concern for many. Just recently, between 28 July and 1 September, five residents died following separate fires in HDB flats. We should not assume that these incidents share a common cause. Even so, five deaths in just over a month should give us pause as we consider this Bill.
As such, I welcome the Senior Minister of State’s commitment that broader fire safety considerations beyond the ambit of this bill remain a top priority for the government. I look forward to further developments in our fire safety regime.
I support the Bill. It strengthens the regulation of products installed in civil defence shelters, tackles obstructions to firefighting access and fire-safety systems, and gives the Singapore Civil Defence Force stronger powers over vehicles transporting petroleum and flammable materials.
I will keep my comments today focused on two areas: firstly, reiterating my call from January to replace existing keyed front gates with alternatives that can be opened from inside without a key, and secondly, clarifications regarding the new powers over vehicles carrying petroleum and flammable materials.
Safe escape
Mr Speaker, my first point concerns escape from the home.
This was a central issue in my Adjournment Motion in January, and I would like to reiterate the calls I made then. This Bill gives us a timely opportunity to consider how my proposals fit within the strengthened approach to escape routes and fire-safety obstructions of this bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill strengthen the law against obstructing firefighting access and interfering with internal and external fire-safety measures. Clause 12 covers acts that obstruct an escape route, passageway or common property where escape during a fire may become more difficult and the obstruction cannot easily be removed by someone trying to get out.
These provisions are important. In a fire, every second counts. Smoke reduces visibility. Panic affects judgement. A previously familiar route, passage, or path can become a maze; and every obstruction increases the risk further.
A similar concern led me to suggest back in January that the biggest barrier for many Singaporeans when it comes to escaping their own homes in a fire—our front gates—should be made as safe as possible by allowing for easy escape without fumbling for a key.
The present Fire Code generally requires exit doors to be openable from the inside without a key, tool or special knowledge. Residential units are expressly exempted from that requirement. The Bill does not seem to change this position.
I therefore ask if the Minister could clarify if the new section 27(a)(v) of the Fire Safety Act on obstructions would apply to a residential entrance gate with a double-cylinder keyed lock or a padlock that forms the only practical route out of a unit.
Relatedly, would the Singapore Civil Defence Force consider reviewing the residential exemption in the Fire Code from keyless egress, alongside the strengthened statutory approach in this Bill, perhaps with a graduated transition period to allow homeowners to become compliant, with support for households that need help meeting the cost?
As I noted in January, new Build-To-Order flats already use gates with an interior thumb-turn that allows for easy escape. Therefore the concern remains older flats and apartments.
Can the Minister update the House on whether the Ministry of Home Affairs, or his colleagues in the Ministry of National Development have considered my January proposal to use the Home Improvement Programme to upgrade older flats to gates with an interior thumb-turn?
Can every new or replacement gate supplied or subsidised through a public programme be required to open from the inside without a key, with double-cylinder keyed locks removed as an option?
For estates with no upcoming upgrading scheduled, can alternative schemes support the phased replacement of gates that require a key to open from the inside?
Responsibility according to practical control
Mr Speaker, my second point concerns the new powers over vehicles carrying petroleum and flammable materials.
New section 86A of the Fire Safety Act allows the Singapore Civil Defence Force to stop and detain a vehicle, inspect its equipment and documents, require information, direct it to a suitable place for unloading and specify a route.
A driver must comply with lawful directions at the scene. Enforcement after the danger has passed should account for who selected the vehicle, packed and loaded the material, controlled the documentation, planned the route and trained the driver. An employee may have little authority over those decisions. Liability for failing to comply with an SCDF requirement is and should be a separate question from responsibility for the unsafe transport arrangements themselves.
I therefore ask how will the SCDF ensure that its investigations relating to this new section 86A—and the broader P&FM regime— also examine failures controlled by employers, licence holders, carriers, suppliers, consignors or loaders? Will enforcement guidance reflect each party’s legal duties and practical control and not impose disproportionate burdens on drivers alone.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, the Bill moves our fire-safety framework in the right direction.
I support the Bill and look forward to the Minister’s clarifications.
