I understand the rationale for this Bill. Nevertheless, I have concerns about the parts of the Bill that appear to relax fire safety requirements and will seek clarifications on them. In addition, I will raise some concerns about fire safety in our housing estates and how this is being tackled.
According to MHA’s media release on 4 August, one of the main aims of the Bill is to “ensure that SCDF’s regulatory and enforcement powers for fire safety incidents and regulation of petroleum and flammable materials remain robust and pro-enterprise”. Among the changes is a class licensing regime for what are deemed to be “lower risk petroleum and flammable materials” activities. The other significant change in the Bill is to extend the maximum validity period of licenses and permits issued under the Fire Safety Act from three years to five years.
While it is clear how these changes will reduce the compliance burden for businesses, there is a need for the Ministry to assure the public that the regulation of petroleum and flammable materials remains robust.
Class Licensing Regime
Let me first deal with the proposed class licensing regime. MHA has stated that the proposed regime will apply, for a start, to the storage of such materials at construction sites, petrol stations, certain laboratories and buildings storing diesel for emergency generators. There will be no need for such businesses to apply to be individually licensed; instead, a class license would apply to all eligible businesses. In addition, the class licenses are not time bound.
We are given to understand that these businesses operating under the proposed class license will still be subject to SCDF’s routine inspections, audits and enforcement checks.
On the proposed class licensing regime, I have three questions. First, could the Ministry elaborate on the definition used by SCDF to determine if a business activity involving petroleum and flammable materials is a “lower risk one”? Second, when it is said that the class licensees would still be subject to SCDF’s routine inspections, audits and enforcement checks, how rigorous is this? For example, would the inspections be conducted annually? What about the frequency of audits – would they be regular, ad hoc, or based on whistleblowing or feedback? I note that in 2025, SCDF conducted 14,750 fire safety enforcement checks, but it is not clear which industries were involved and whether the checks were conducted routinely, randomly or in response to complaints.
Extension of License and Permit Duration
Clause 26 of the Bill proposes to extend the validity period of licenses or permits issued under the Fire Safety Act from three years to five years, to reduce compliance costs for business. My fundamental question is: Is there any potential safety compromise being made by this change?
The licenses and permits issued under Part 6 of the Fire Safety Act concern the control of petroleum and flammable materials. These licenses and permits impose requirements on the storage of such materials, how they are transported and dispensed, and the safeguarding of pipelines conveying such materials. In order to obtain such licenses and permits, applicants need to provide the SCDF with detailed information such as building plans, precise locations of containers or tanks storing such materials, means of ventilation and escape, type and location of all fire extinguishing equipment and fire safety measures, relevant pressure test reports and a whole lot more.
Workplace conditions can drastically change over three years, let alone five years. Containers and tanks may be moved due to workplace exigencies; fire extinguishing equipment can lack maintenance or malfunction; means of escape may become obstructed. With the extension of the validity period of licenses and permits from three to five years, is the fire safety risk increased?
To be fair, I understand that fire safety checks are not dependent on the licensing regime alone. There are requirements for other checks, depending on the type of premises. For higher risk premises, SCDF may itself conduct yearly surveys and compulsory tests for emergency response teams; for other premises, there may be step-down requirements such as yearly inspections by qualified persons, professional engineers or fire safety managers. Could the Ministry elaborate on the concurrent requirements that it believes will mitigate the fire safety risk potentially caused by the extension of the validity period for licenses and permits?
Other Premises Using Flammable Materials
In this final section of my speech, I would like to highlight that there are other premises which use flammable materials that require attention. What I am most concerned about are premises which members of the public frequent daily, such as food establishments. Such establishments may not be required to obtain the licenses and permits covered by the Bill because they are considered low risk. Nevertheless, many of them, such as coffeeshops and food centres, do contain flammable materials such as gas used for cooking. Any lapses in fire safety could inflict devastating harms on many.
Residents in my ward experienced that first hand in May this year when a fire not only gutted the coffeeshop itself but had distressing ramifications for residents living above it. Some were hospitalised for smoke inhalation, others had their homes damaged, common pipes melted and water supply took several days to restore. Residents’ lives were disrupted in one way or another for more than a month. To date, their claims for loss and damage are still being investigated by the insurer of the relevant coffeeshop stallholder. That said, one important positive outcome was that in restoring the coffeeshop back to business, it had to undergo a compulsory fire safety upgrade. The coffeeshop was required to install a fire suppression system; in addition, LPG gas isolation valves were installed at each individual stall.
In order to understand more about how fire safety at coffeeshops was safeguarded, I filed a Parliamentary Question in July. The Ministry of Home Affairs replied that the Fire Code applied to such establishments; that SCDF did enforcement checks both scheduled and unannounced, to complement HDB’s annual checks. While this basic structure is there, there is a separate question as to whether the stallholders and assistants handling flammable materials are trained in fire safety.
In July I asked another Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment, as to whether those who are applying for a cooked food stallholder’s license should also be required to be trained in fire safety before being licensed. The MSE’s answer implied that there was no such requirement. Instead, the MSE stated that regular engagement and education on fire safety was done for stall operators in hawker centres. Even for this type of outreach, it is not clear the extent to which stallholders operating in coffeeshops or eating houses were included. The use of cooking gas can be hazardous. If a fire incident were to happen, how many of the personnel at food establishments would know how to contain it? How many know that there are emergency shut off valves or snap valves to cut off gas supply, and are they trained to operate it? Do they know how to use fire extinguishers? An appropriate and timely first response could make a world of difference.
Conclusion
As in all things, fire safety is only as strong as its weakest link. In Singapore’s densely populated urban environment, any fire incident has the potential to affect hundreds at a time and in devastating ways. Even as this Bill seeks to ease the compliance burden on businesses, we must never lose our commitment to fire safety as a non-negotiable priority.
