Louis asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider extending the smoking prohibition at any playground or exercise area to also include any area within a radius of 5 metres from the outer edge of the playground or exercise area.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): My Ministry's long-term goal is to prohibit smoking in all public places to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. Smoking is already prohibited in more than 32,000 premises, including shopping malls, hospitals, schools, bus-stops, covered walkways and common areas of residential premises or buildings. Playgrounds and exercise areas are also places where smoking is currently prohibited. To protect users of such facilities against second-hand smoke, the smoking prohibition is applicable to any sidewalk, chair, bench or amenity adjacent to the playground or exercise area.

My Ministry will take into account the Member's suggestion to include any area within a radius of five metres from the outer edge of the playground or exercise areas when extending the smoking prohibition in future.

Louis: I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply, but I think a lot of residents have provided feedback that while we have extended the prohibition to cover also the sidewalks, the chairs, the benches, but it really is a grey area because a lot of people are smoking on the grass patch which we are not sure whether that is legal or illegal. Which is why I hope that the review will consider making it just a five-metre radius from the outer perimeter of the exercise area or the playground. Considering as well that these are areas where people are exercising and our children are playing, we really should not have second-hand smoke.

Dr Amy Khor: As mentioned in my earlier reply, we will take into account the Member's suggestion to extend the smoking prohibited area to within a five-metre radius from the outer edge of the playground and exercise areas. There are jurisdictions in other countries that have implemented this. As I have noted earlier, the smoking prohibited areas had been extended to all sidewalks and these areas could already be well within the suggested five-metre radius.

At the end of the day, all stakeholders have to play their part and exercise civic-mindedness and social responsibility. I would like to urge all smokers not to smoke near the playgrounds and smoking prohibited areas. Should there be actual cases, perhaps a gentle and polite reminder asking the smoker to move away may well do the trick. 

Louis: May I just check when this review is going to take place?

Dr Amy Khor: We are monitoring and also looking into an extension of some of these smoking areas. So, as soon as we have made the decision, we will make the announcements.  

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Extension of Smoking Prohibition at Committee of Supply 2016.

Louis: Madam, smoking prohibition in Singapore was first introduced in 1970 and has been progressively extended to cover virtually all indoor places and areas where the public congregate. This is to provide a clean, safe and healthy environment for the public and to safeguard members of the public from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

The last extension of the smoking ban was in 2013. The long-term policy goal of the Ministry is to prohibit smoking at all public places, except designated smoking points or areas. NEA's goal is to move the policy from a prohibitive list to a positive list.

While there are recent steps, such as the ban on display at point-of-sale, taken by the Ministry to reduce smoking rates in Singapore, does the Ministry intend to further expand the reach of the smoking ban, to cover more places in order to safeguard the health of the public against the harmful and damaging effects of second-hand smoke?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources): One of the most common pieces of litter is cigarette butts. Besides contributing to the litter problem, inconsiderate smoking practices also endanger the health of non-smokers through second-hand smoke. To protect non-smokers, we have progressively prohibited smoking in public places since the 1970s. The smoking prohibition was last extended in 2013 and today, there are more than 32,000 premises and locations where smoking is prohibited.

We will continue our work towards a smoke-free Singapore. I am glad to inform Er Dr Lee and Mr Ng that from 1 June 2016, smoking will be prohibited in reservoirs and more than 400 parks, including neighbourhood parks within residential estates and those under JTC. At the same time, the SAF, SPF, SCDF, Prisons, CNB and ICA have, for many years, voluntarily and successfully implemented smoking or smoke prohibition policies within their premises. We will formally include SAF camps and bases and MHA premises to the list of places where smoking is prohibited by law.

Louis: Two points of clarification. First is that with the smoking prohibition, does it also cover the parks and public housing estates that are managed by NParks and not just those by the Town Councils.

Dr Amy Khor: Regarding smoking prohibition, there are already about 30 parks under NParks where smoking is prohibited. The additional 400 odd parks which will be covered by the extension of the smoking prohibition include neighbourhood parks within Town Council managed areas, parks under JTC Corporation and NParks-managed parks in private residential estates.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following budget cuts at Committee of Supply 2017.

Expanding the Smoking Ban

Louis: Thank you, Madam. Can the NEA provide an update on the effectiveness of the designated smoking areas and points in Orchard Road and Nee Soon South? What are the Government's further plans to protect the general public from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke? Will it be moving towards only allowing smoking at designated areas, instead of having a list of prohibited areas? Will the Ministry consider expanding the ban on smoking outside designated areas to other busy streets, such as the Central Business District and the Civic District, as done in other cities like Tokyo and Kyoto?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources): Next, I turn to smoking. As Mr Ng highlighted, our long-term goal is to prohibit smoking in all public spaces except at designated areas. Last year, we extended smoking prohibition to areas around reservoirs, and more than 400 parks. With this, more than 32,000 premises are now smoke-free in Singapore. We will look into progressively extending the smoking prohibition in other areas.

We recently set up five Designated Smoking Areas (DSAs) in Orchard Road to study the effectiveness of DSAs in reducing smoking in a commercial area. We hope this will encourage smokers to be considerate by smoking only at the DSAs. This study, when completed at the end of the year, will inform us on the public's reception towards DSAs, and give us insight into the location and design considerations of DSAs. We will take into consideration the results of this study before we consider extending the implementation of DSAs to other locations.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Outcome of Public Consultation

Louis: MOH has just completed a public consultation on a suite of potential tobacco control measures. Can the Minister provide details of the outcome of these public consultations, in particular, increasing the minimum legal age for the purchase, possession and use of tobacco in Singapore from 18 to 21 years old?

In addition, are there further plans to increase our support for those who want to quit smoking? As a former smoker, I know how difficult it is to quit, and how quitting made me a Grouchy Smurf for quite a while. The decision to quit is easy; the ability to follow through is very difficult. And if we can provide more support, I am sure we will see a higher success rate. Will the Ministry, for example, expand and enhance the very successful "I Quit" campaign? I am proud to say that since 12 October 2013, I have remained smoke-free and I am a very happy Papa Smurf now.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (The Senior Minister of State for Health): We want to protect our young from the harms of tobacco, and lay the foundations for good health. In Singapore, nearly half or 45% of smokers become regular smokers between the ages of 18 and 21 years. According to a report by the World Health Organisation, persons who do not start smoking before the age of 21 "are unlikely to ever begin". Findings from Needham, Massachusetts, the first US town to increase its Minimum Legal Age (MLA) for sale of tobacco from 18 to 21 years, are promising − youth smoking rates have fallen more rapidly here, compared to neighbouring areas. At least 215 localities in the US, including New York City and the states of Hawaii and California, have since increased their MLA to 21 years. Between December 2015 and March 2016, HPB conducted public consultation on further tobacco control measures. The feedback showed considerable support for raising the MLA in Singapore.

MOH will take further steps to reduce, if not eliminate the opportunities for our young to be tempted and to take up smoking before 21. We will propose legislative changes to Parliament within a year to raise the Minimum Legal Age for sale of tobacco products to minors, from 18 to 21 years. The change will be phased in over a few years.

We are taking steps towards standardising tobacco packaging. Australia, France and the UK have all implemented standardised packaging.

We have closely studied the experience of these countries, and see significant value in moving in this direction, so as to reduce the appeal of tobacco products, particularly to youths, and raise the visibility and effectiveness of health warnings. We will conduct a further public consultation on standardised packaging this year to seek additional and more detailed views on possible standardised packaging measures. We will carefully review relevant considerations including public health, intellectual property and international law perspectives, and ensure that any measures taken are consistent with our domestic law and international obligations.

We will continue to monitor international best practices in tobacco control and will adopt appropriate measures to control tobacco use.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his speech in support for Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) (Amendment) Bill as follow.

Louis: Sir, we have been progressively expanding the list of smoke-free places in Singapore, moving step by step towards our vision of prohibiting smoking in all public places.

I understand that NEA’s goal is to move the policy from a prohibitive list to a positive list, which states places where smoking is allowed. This Bill is a step in that direction and I stand in full support of it.

As a former smoker who smoked for 17 years, I am passionate about fighting against the dangers of smoking. As a father, I am now doing all I can to protect my three daughters against the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. 85% to 90% of smoke in every cigarette ends up as second-hand smoke and there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke.  The World Health Organisation has reported that second-hand smoke contains at least 60 cancer-causing chemicals. Those who are exposed to second-hand smoke face similar health risks as a smoker. These include eye, nose and throat irritations, respiratory tract infections, heart disease, and cancers. Children and pregnant women are particularly susceptible to the effects of secondhand smoke.  Further, children of smokers are more likely to pick up smoking themselves.

Sir I am in strong support of this Bill and my only hope is that we can do more. We are now doing a lot to protect people from second-hand smoke in public areas but the concern which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah has just mentioned is that there has been raised also previously in this House is what are we doing to protect people from second-hand smoke in their own homes? It would seem at odds to protect people from second-hand smoke in the public areas where they spend less time and not protect them at home where they spend more time. 

Many of my residents complain about being affected by second-hand smoke when their neighbours smoke at their windows or balconies. As HDB units are close to each other, what happens next door inadvertently affects neighbours. For those who live next to, or above, chain smokers, the problem can be very acute. Imagine being exposed to and having to tolerate second-hand smoke from your neighbours everyday for years with the only reprieve being moving out altogether. This is the reality faced by some of my residents, which I am sure is shared by many others.

I understand that the Act currently covers smoking in private vehicles in cases where windows are not fully wound up and smoke is expelled into smoking prohibited places. I understand that it also covers any area within five metres of windows, exits and entrances to buildings where smoking is prohibited. These restrictions are based on the logic that cigarette smoke can be expelled up to five metres away. As such, applying the same logic, can the law be extended to prohibit smoking in private homes where the smoker is smoking at a window or door within five metres of their neighbour’s windows and doors? This might not be the prefect solution but my hope is that the Ministry studies this issue further, does a public consultation about it and tries to find a middle ground.

I appreciate that the Senior Minister of State's reply will be what she said previously that “Smoking within residential premises, in the home, in private space is beyond the jurisdiction of the Government.” But we do have regulations that cover what you do in your home, in your own private space. For example, we have regulations that prohibit making excessive noise in your own house. We have regulations saying you cannot be naked in your own house. Under section 27A of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, a person cannot be naked in a private space while being exposed to public view.  I also want to add that it was reported just last month that the US implemented a ban on smoking inside public housing to improve indoor air quality, to reduce residents’ exposure to second-hand smoke, and to help smokers be more successful at quitting.

According to a nationwide study they conducted, people who lived in homes where smoking was prohibited were 60% more likely to quit smoking for at least 30 days as compared to people without this prohibition.

Next, Sir, in a Facebook comment, Mr Loh shared with me the very common experience of pedestrians forced to breathe in second-hand smoke when they walk behind smokers who smoke while on the move. Chiyoda-ku City in Tokyo has banned smoking while walking. New York City is now also considering a Bill that would similarly prohibit people from smoking while walking on sidewalks. Would the Ministry consider a ban on smoking while walking, which would stamp out the unpleasant situation highlighted by Mr Loh that many of us have faced? Such a ban could be piloted on major streets with heavy pedestrian footfall such as those in the Central Business District and the Civic District.

Further, earlier this year Senior Minister of State Amy Khor shared that the Ministry is exploring the feasibility of expanding the designated smoking area scheme first implemented in Orchard Road to other parts of Singapore. Senior Minister of State mentioned this in her opening speech. Can the Ministry provide more updates on this review and share if there are plans to scale up the scheme?

Can I also ask what would be the guidelines used in determining the suitability of the locating a smoking facility under section 3B? This would be very important. I raise this as some of the current eateries where there is a designated smoking area, it really does not matter where you sit as you will get the second-hand smoke whether you are in the designated smoking area or not.

Lastly, I refer to the new section 4A which provides authorised officers with certain powers of entry. More specifically, to ascertain if a place has contravened the Act, officers are able to enter, inspect and search places, seize documents or materials, take possession of belongings, and photograph or film without a warrant. Maximum fine of $2,000 is imposed on first offenders and $5,000 on repeat offenders who obstruct authorised officers exercising these powers.  While some powers of entry are necessary for effective enforcement and to achieve better outcomes for people affected by second-hand smoke, the scope of powers and maximum fine imposed might appear to some to be excessive. Further, these powers may be exercised by non-uniformed public officers as with many of the other Bills passed recently. I understand the need to empower nonuniformed public officers, in this case NEA officers, to help with enforcement. Nonetheless, this has to be balanced against privacy concerns, and I would like to ask what measures would be in place to prevent the abuse of such broad powers.

Sir, notwithstanding these comments, I stand in full support of this Bill as it signals a strong resolve by the Government to protect citizens against second-hand smoke. It is a firm step towards our vision of a smoke-free lifestyle in Singapore.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Louis Ng suggested a pilot to prohibit smoking while on the move. Once the Orchard Road NSZ is in force, every public place within the zone would be smoking-prohibited, and smokers would not be able to light up while walking along the shopping belt. Outside of the NSZ, smoking is already disallowed in many public places. This includes sheltered pedestrian walkways, overhead bridges, and the corridors of public estates.

Our priority is to implement the NSZ well, monitor the outcomes and make any necessary improvements. We will then assess the impact of the Orchard Road NSZ and its DSAs, before considering whether to replicate it elsewhere. The NSZ will be brought into force in the coming months and details will be provided in due course.

Mr Louis Ng and Miss Cheryl Chan asked if we plan to provide DSAs in places beyond Orchard Road, such as in our housing estates. Unlike Orchard Road, our heartlands are where our homes and schools are, and where our young children and youths spend their time daily. DSAs typically serve as congregation points for smokers. The daily sight of people gathering to smoke at DSAs at residential areas may give our young the impression that it is normal to smoke. As much as possible, we want to avoid this.

Furthermore, given the design of our housing estates where HDB blocks are well-connected and dense, it may be challenging to find suitable locations that ensure that DSAs are not too conspicuous.

Hence, our approach has instead been to extend the smoking prohibition to as many areas as possible within housing estates where members of the public frequent, including sheltered walkways, exercise areas and playgrounds. We will continue to monitor and enforce against smoking violations in these areas.

Mr Ng cited a recent US ban on smoking within public housing estate as an example of how a comparable regime could be implemented in Singapore. The US smoking ban does not apply to all homes, but only to public housing estate for low-income residents, through the imposition of conditions in the tenancy agreements. Tenants who do not wish to comply with the smoking ban may have to look for alternative housing. The context of the US smoking ban is very different and we do need to consider our local circumstances before adapting practices from abroad.

Mr Ng and Ms Chan asked about the guidelines for smoking facilities. Within the Orchard Road NSZ, a DSA must be demarcated clearly and be provided with at least one cigarette waste bin. The DSA must not be located where smoking is currently prohibited and must not obstruct public walkways or cause disamenities. An example of a DSA that complies with these requirements is the one located at Far East Shopping Centre currently. There, the DSA is inconspicuously located at a distance from the pedestrian thoroughfare and in the open, so second-hand smoke does not accumulate.

In the case of smoking facilities located within food establishments such as coffee shops, I would like to update Mr Ng and Ms Pereira that since June 2017, smoking corners have been disallowed in new food establishments across the island. When the Orchard Road NSZ comes into effect, outdoor smoking areas at food establishments within the NSZ will also have to close. Existing food establishments that change hands and are issued a new licence would similarly have to remove their smoking corners. We have taken these steps to increasingly create a smoke-free dining experience for everyone.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the rationale for the provisions on enforcement powers. The new section 4A gives NEA the powers to enter and inspect smoking-prohibited premises, as not all of these premises are freely accessible to the public. 

 As I mentioned earlier, NEA has, at times, encountered challenges in investigating complaints about smoking in certain smoking-prohibited premises, such as at pubs and bars, where uncooperative managers have denied entry by NEA's officers. Managers who refuse NEA entry would now be liable for an offence under the new section 4B. These provisions will deter managers from obstructing or hindering NEA's officers discharging their duties to safeguard public health, and reduce abortive enforcement work.  

Nonetheless, the powers of entry will be exercised judiciously by trained and authorised officers. I have earlier set out the restrictions on the exercise of the powers of entry. The new section 4A also does not allow authorised officers to make forcible entry under any circumstances. The powers can only be exercised for the purposes of the Act, namely, to enforce the smoking prohibition.  

Authorised officers would only be allowed to take possession of materials related to the suspected offence. In practice, we will ensure that only officers directly investigating the case may access the evidence.  

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the health effects of prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke; (b) how many diagnoses of conditions related to second-hand smoke exposure are there each year in the past five years; (c) how many people in Singapore die because of second-hand smoke each year in the past five years; and (d) whether the Ministry will start collecting such data if it is currently not available.

Mr Amrin Amin (for the Minister for Health): Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, also known as second-hand smoke, is associated with health conditions similar to those faced by smokers. These include eye, nose and throat irritation, increased risk of respiratory infections, worsening of pre-existing respiratory problems such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And also, increased risk of heart disease, stroke and some cancers such as breast and lung cancer.

In individuals, it is often not possible to definitively attribute disease conditions specifically to exposure to secondhand smoke, because the individual may also have other risk factors. At the population level, the Global Burden of Disease 2016 study estimates that tobacco use contributes to approximately seven percent 7% of the total disease burden in Singapore, of which 1% is due to second-hand smoke and 6% due to active smoking. Disease burden refers to the number of years of healthy life lost, due to premature death as well as living in ill health. From the same study, six persons die each day from active smoking or exposure to second-hand smoke. The results of the same study in 2010 are similar to the one in 2016.

Tobacco use, including cigarette smoking and second-hand smoke, remains a leading contributor to the burden of disease in Singapore. MOH will continue to monitor the effects of tobacco use, and press on with its multi-pronged approach to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use in Singapore. This includes public education, provision of smoking cessation and tobacco control legislation.

Louis: Sir, I thank the Senior Parliament Secretary for the reply. I think many people are aware of the dangers of smoking. But I think very few are now aware of the dangers of secondhand smoke. The Senior Parliament Secretary mentioned a bit about the outreach efforts. So, I am just wondering whether MOH should be increasing our outreach efforts to make sure people are aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke and also what they can do to prevent inhaling second-hand smoke.

Mr Amrin Amin: Currently, HPB has developed online and print resources, example, brochures, posters, to raise awareness on environmental tobacco smoke. And through I Quit roadshows, HPB health ambassadors also share with the smokers and their family members on the harmful health effects of the environmental tobacco smoke and encourage smokers to quit smoking. But we note the suggestion and we will see what we can do to increase outreach in that area.

Louis: One last query. I have asked actually how many but I think the Senior Parliament Secretary replied with a percentage. Could I just get an absolute number of how many people are actually affected by second-hand smoke in terms of death or diagnosis? I know that the figure in Japan is that 15,000 people die every year because of second-hand smoke. So, I am just wondering whether we have the statistics for Singapore.

Mr Amrin Amin: I apologise, I do not have the exact numbers. I just have the percentages. I can touch base with the Member separately.
[Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health", Official Report, 2 October 2018, Vol 94, Issue No 84.]

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is aware of any air filters available in the market which have been proven to effectively filter out the harmful effects of second-hand smoke in private homes. 

Mr Gan Kim Yong (MOH): We are unaware of any air filtration technology which would be effective at filtering out the harmful effects of cigarette smoke.

The toxic constituents of cigarette smoke are both particulate and gaseous in nature. Residential air cleaning technology is unable to adequately remove all of the gaseous components, such as formaldehyde, benzene and carbon monoxide.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis sked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider conducting a pilot study using Sidepak and/or Dylo monitors and passive nicotine dosimeters to monitor the air quality in homes affected by prolonged secondhand smoke from their neighbours and where mediation between both parties has not been successful.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (MEWR): SidePak and Dylos monitors are used to measure ambient PM2.5 levels. However, monitoring ambient PM2.5 levels indoors does not specifically identify smoking activity, as sources of PM2.5 can be attributed to other activities at home such as cooking and the burning of incense. Passive nicotine dosimeters measure airborne nicotine, a specific indicator of second-hand tobacco smoke, but are unable to provide real-time results. Hence, while such measuring devices are promising, they require further development before they can be used as good indicators of exposure to second-hand smoke. There are currently no plans for a study using such devices. We will continue to review the use of relevant technology for air quality monitoring.

The law does not prohibit smoking in residential homes as these are private spaces. Nonetheless, we recognise that second-hand smoke from residential premises can waft into neighbours’ homes. We encourage smokers to be socially responsible and considerate when smoking, so as not to affect their neighbours. 

Residents who are affected by second-hand smoke from their neighbours’ residences are encouraged to discuss and resolve the issue amicably or seek assistance from the Community Mediation Centre (CMC). As a last resort, aggrieved parties can file a case with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT). The CDRT have the power to order parties to attend compulsory mediation in the Courts or at the CMC, to attend counselling, or to fix the case for hearing by the Courts.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis discusses the issue of second-hand smoke with Dr Yvette van der Eijk from NUS Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health and host Lin Suling on CNA’s Heart of the Matter podcast.

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment how does the Ministry ensure that the surveillance cameras used to detect high-rise littering do not intrude into people's privacy.

Ms Grace Fu (MSE): In the National Environment Agency’s (NEA) deployment of optical surveillance cameras for high-rise littering enforcement, safeguards have been put in place to mitigate residents’ privacy concerns. The nature of the offence allows NEA to focus the cameras on the external facade of buildings where surveillance is being carried out, often at an angle either above or below the unit of interest, rather than looking directly into individual units.

In the first instance, NEA will always look for vantage points at the ground level for camera deployments. Only if such a site cannot be found, would NEA source for vantage points in adjacent blocks, and if a site can be found, deploy our camera there. As a result, the majority of our camera deployments for surveillance of high-rise littering acts are conducted at the ground level. This SOP further minimises the instances of a surveillance camera looking directly into housing units.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the designation of the Orchard Road precinct as a "No Smoking Zone" (NSZ) has been considered as a success; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering designating other areas as NSZ.

Ms Grace Fu (MSE): The Orchard Road No Smoking Zone (ORNSZ) has generally seen good results. Public reactions have been positive. A survey conducted by the National Environment Agency (NEA) in July 2019 found that 80% of the respondents (including 60% of smokers surveyed) supported the ORNSZ. Top reasons from smokers and non-smokers include the environmental and public health benefits brought about.

Since enforcement at the ORNSZ started in April 2019, feedback on smoking has decreased from around 30 cases per month in the first three months, to fewer than 15 cases per month on average from January to March 2020, just before Circuit Breaker.

The smooth implementation of the ORNSZ, which covers a relatively large area with high footfall and numerous commercial premises, has been made possible by the collective effort and involvement of the local stakeholders. This includes ongoing support in maintaining sufficient Designated Smoking Areas (DSAs) within the ORNSZ, placement of signages, and engagement of smokers to seek their cooperation to smoke only within DSAs.

We will continue to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the ORNSZ, as well as the level of support from local stakeholders and partners, before considering whether to designate other areas as No Smoking Zones.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Ministry will consider imposing a ban on smoking while walking.

Ms Grace Fu (MSE): Smoking is prohibited in many public places to protect the public from harmful second-hand tobacco smoke. Covering more than 32,000 places, these include public places with high footfall such as pedestrian overhead bridges, covered or underground pedestrian walkways, and the common areas of residential buildings. For clarity of the rules to both the smokers and the non-smokers, so that there is a clear understanding of where smoking is disallowed, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has prohibited smoking by types of places, regardless of the activity that the smoker is engaged in. NEA has expanded the list of smoking-prohibited places over the years. It will continue to monitor and enforce against smoking violations at smoking-prohibited places. It does not intend to include walking as an activity where smoking is prohibited.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether the Government will look into deploying smaller and more discreet surveillance cameras for capturing high-rise littering so as to avoid alerting potential offenders to the deployment of these cameras.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): The National Environment Agency (NEA) is continually looking to enhance its enforcement capabilities, including for high-rise littering surveillance, by keeping pace with the latest developments in camera technology. Cameras that are smaller in size tended to have a shorter optical range and duration. NEA will consider the effectiveness of surveillance equipment comprehensively in its adoption.

Louis: Thank you, Madam, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. Could I just ask whether there is a timeframe in terms of reviewing the effectiveness of the current surveillance cameras? I just did my home visits again and I still have the same feedback about the same debate that we had a few years ago, about how, when we put the surveillance camera there, it is good deterrence – people stopped littering or throwing out their cigarette butts. But the minute we remove the cameras, they start again. So, it is a cat-and-mouse game and it really is a waste of our current resources.

Can NEA look into this; look into deploying smaller, more discreet cameras so that we can have more effective enforcement on the ground?

Dr Amy Khor: Let me explain. We are mindful of the feedback that we have gotten and indeed, we are aware of this. As I have said, we continue to look at developments in camera technology for more effective and better deployment. But in the mean time, to make it less conspicuous, we deploy the camera quite a distance away from the suspected units. We try to deploy at ground level where site conditions permit and, only in cases where this is not possible, do we look for an adjacent block to deploy the camera.

We also need to consider other factors that will help us in apprehending the high-rise litter bugs. For instance, you need to deploy the camera over a sufficient surveillance duration, which is maybe, a few days; five days or even more. Therefore, you will require a battery pack. You will also need to make sure that the cameras are tamper-proof, not subjected to mischief, for instance. And to mount it securely, you need a camera pole. Actually, it is not just the size of the camera but the entire system, which comprises the camera plus the battery pack.

There is also this trade-off between size and efficacy. You need cameras with wider optical range because you usually do not have good enough information to know exactly which floor and, in fact, even which stack. So, you need a wider optical range from which to increase the chance to apprehend the high-rise littering offenders. That is the reason why, if you look at it, it is not just the size of the camera, but the entire system. 

As I have said, we will continue to look at developments in camera technology, including better image resolution and detection capabilities. At the moment, smaller cameras mean shorter surveillance duration capabilities as well as very limited optical range.

At the end of the day, enforcement does act as a deterrent, but for a long-term sustainable solution, it must be that we want to encourage all Singapore residents to take collective responsibility, to encourage and influence each other to be civic-minded and to have positive social norms.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) for each year in the past three years, how many advisories has the Ministry issued to residents, telling them "not to smoke near the windows or at the balconies, as a way to minimise the amount of cigarette smoke emitted from their premises"; and (b) what percentage of advisories resulted in the issue of second-hand smoke being resolved.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (MSE): Whenever a feedback on smoking near windows or balconies is received by NEA, NEA officers would advise the residential unit occupants to be considerate to their family members and neighbours, and refrain from smoking near windows, balconies or other areas. NEA does not track the number of advisories issued.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Update on Nuisance Orders Issued under Sections 45(1) and 44(e) of Environmental Public Health Act

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many nuisance orders have been issued to date under section 45(1) of the Environmental Public Health Act; (b) what is the complete list of nuisances for which nuisance orders have been issued; and (c) how many nuisance orders are issued specifically for nuisances falling under section 44(e) of the Environmental Public Health Act.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (MSE): Sections 44 and 45 of the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) come under Part V of the EPHA. As mentioned in this House recently, Part V of the EPHA on the abatement of public nuisances through the use of nuisance orders, addresses public nuisances that affect the public at large. It does not apply to private nuisances, which interfere with another person’s use or enjoyment of his property.

In the last six years, the number of nuisance orders issued stood at 21. Most were issued to address public nuisance arising from waste management issues at trade fairs and dust nuisance at construction sites.

Prior to 2015, more than 1,700 nuisance orders were issued, with the vast majority issued for dust issues at construction sites. Dust issues from construction sites have been addressed under section 18 of the EPHA since 2015. This allows us to act more expeditiously when the construction site fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent flying dust from affecting the well-being of persons using any public place, without the need to first establish that the public at large is affected by the dust nuisance and prove that it is due to a particular construction site.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Deaths Attributable to Second-hand Smoke in Each of Past Five Years

Louis asked the Minister for Health based on data from the total burden of disease, for each year in the past five years, what is the number of deaths attributable to second-hand smoke.  

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOH): Based on the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study, the annual total number of deaths attributable to second-hand smoke for Singapore was estimated to be 261 in 2015, 266 in 2016, 271 in 2017, 284 in 2018, and 296 in 2019. However, after adjusting for the effect of an ageing population, a reduction in the age-standardised death rate was observed from 4.32 per 100,000 population in 2015 to 4.00 per 100,000 population in 2019. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Condominium By-laws Prohibiting Smoking at Balconies, Patios or Windows and Their Effectiveness in Curbing Problem of Second-hand Smoke

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how many condominiums currently have by-laws prohibiting smoking at balconies, patios or windows; (b) what are the names of these condominiums; and (c) whether the Government has studied whether these by-laws have been effective at curbing the problem of second-hand smoke.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (MSE): Management Corporations of strata-titled condominiums (MCSTs) have the autonomy to enact by-laws to manage and administer use and enjoyment of their developments by residents, subject to relevant provisions under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act. We do not track by-laws enacted by MCSTs that prohibit smoking.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Effective Threshold before a Nuisance is Considered an Offence of Public Nature under Penal Code and Environmental Public Health Act

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether there is any threshold on the number of persons who must be affected before a nuisance can be considered to be an offence of a public nature under the (i) Penal Code and (ii) Environmental Public Health Act; (b) if so, what is the threshold; and (c) whether persons who are affected in their own homes are considered part of the threshold number.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (MSE): The Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) addresses public nuisances that affect the public or community at large, regardless of whether they are affected in their homes. As there are differing situations that can constitute a public nuisance, there is no specified threshold or criterion and each situation would be assessed based on its facts and circumstances.

Similarly, the Penal Code does not specify any threshold on the number of persons that must be affected for the offence of public nuisance to be made out. Whether or not an offence is made out will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether special covenant 2(1)(a) of the Memorandum of Lease to HDB's lease agreement can be enforced to prevent smoking near balconies or windows; (b) under what circumstances has HDB enforced this covenant; and (c) if HDB has not enforced this, why not.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): Smoking in one’s flat may cause nuisance and health concerns to neighbours if cigarette smoke wafts into their homes. While this is covered by the covenant referred to by the Member, enforcing the breach of a covenant under the lease entails compulsory acquisition of the flat. This is a harsh measure that is not undertaken lightly. HDB exercises the right of compulsory acquisition sparingly and often as a last resort. Moreover, should a flat be compulsorily acquired, the flat owners and occupants of the flat, such as their family members, will need to relocate and find a home elsewhere. If the underlying issues are not resolved, the issue will just be brought over to another community. 

Hence, the approach to manage disamenities and disputes between neighbours is for neighbours to come together to try to resolve the matter amicably. When residents provide feedback to agencies on second-hand tobacco smoke issues, HDB, together with Town Councils and the National Environment Agency, will first encourage neighbours to speak to each other to try to resolve the matter. Where necessary, a Joint Advisory on Smoking in Homes will be issued to the residential unit reported to be emitting second-hand smoke, encouraging considerate behaviour and emphasising the negative impact that second-hand smoke may have on their neighbours.

If this does not work, the agencies will advise the affected neighbour to seek mediation. In intractable cases, the affected neighbour may file a case with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). If the respondent is shown to have caused unreasonable interference to the affected neighbour, then the CDRT may make a range of orders against the respondent, including requiring the respondent to cease or refrain from carrying out certain acts.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development in view of the Government’s efforts to reduce disamenities in HDB estates (a) under what circumstances will HDB cite or use special covenants 2(1) and 2(2) of the Memorandum of Lease to HDB’s lease agreement in their enforcement efforts; and (b) how many times has HDB cited or enforced these covenants respectively for each year in the last three years and for what types of breach.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): The Special Covenants 2(1) and 2(2) of the HDB Memorandum of Lease generally set out the acts and uses that are not permitted in HDB flats, in order to maintain a high-quality living environment for all residents. The majority of these Special Covenants relate to building safety and integrity, as well as fixtures within the flat. 

In the past three years, HDB has not enforced Special Covenants 2(1) and 2(2) of the Memorandum of Lease. Enforcing the Covenants in the Memorandum of Lease entails compulsory acquisition of the flat, and HDB exercises this right only as a last resort as this is a harsh measure that is not undertaken lightly. HDB’s approach is therefore to contemplate enforcement of the Special Covenants in instances where the breaches are serious, e.g. for unauthorised renovations where there is a safety risk to residents of the block.

For issues relating to disamenities and disputes between neighbours, neighbours should first come together to try to resolve the matter amicably. If this does not work, agencies will advise the affected neighbour to seek mediation. In intractable cases, the affected neighbour may file a case with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). If the respondent is shown to have caused unreasonable interference to the affected neighbour, then the CDRT may make a range of orders against the respondent, including requiring the respondent to cease or refrain from carrying out certain acts.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Government will study the implementation of a ban on the sale of tobacco products to those born after a particular year, in addition to the current minimum legal age; (b) if so, what are the factors the Government will look into when determining whether to implement such a ban and when will the results of the study be announced; and (c) if not, why not.

Dr Koh Poh Koon (for the Minister for Health): Sir, smoking and second-hand smoke exposure are associated with at least 11 major medical conditions that accounted for about $180 million of healthcare cost in 2019. Our consistent policy approach has been to reduce our smoking rates and encourage smokers to quit.

We do not have comparable figures of the smoking quit rate in the past two years as requested by Dr Lim Wee Kiak. But our tobacco control measures have been successful. It has progressively reduced smoking prevalence rates from 11.8% in 2017 to 10.1% in 2020.

The most effective has been tobacco tax. Several economic studies have reached a consensus that for every 10% increase in real price, there will be about a 3% to 5% decrease in overall tobacco consumption, a 3.5% reduction in young people taking up smoking and a total of about 3% to 5% reduction of new young people taking up smoking as well. But it was last increased in 2018. So, with inflation and income increases, the tax burden gets eroded over time and we will have to continue to work with MOF to review the tobacco tax rate. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Health", Official Report, 11 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 45, Corrections by Written Statement section.]

In 2020, standardised packaging and enhanced graphic health warnings were required for all tobacco products sold here in Singapore to reduce the attractiveness of cigarettes. It is, however, still too early to evaluate the effectiveness of this measure.

We also progressively raised the minimum legal age for smoking from 19 years in 2019 to 21 years in January 2021. This aims to denormalise tobacco use among youth below the age of 21, restrict their access to tobacco products in their social circles, and hence, reduce the likelihood of smoking initiation. It has contributed to a decline in smoking among younger adults aged 18 to 29 years, from 9.8% in 2017 to 8.8% in 2020.

MOH and HPB will be piloting a new smoking cessation programme where eligible individuals will be offered subsidised Nicotine Replacement Therapy that is complemented with counselling in public healthcare institutions.

Smokers who are looking for support to quit can also join HPB's I Quit Programme. It offers smokers a range of smoking cessation interventions, such as phone or face-to-face counselling, or frequent nudges via text messages to encourage participants to sustain their behaviours.

There have been several questions raised by Members of Parliament on New Zealand's recently announced cohort smoking ban. It is an attractive proposal, in that it prevents young people from taking up smoking while not putting too many restrictions on older smokers. Then, of course, as the years go by, more and more cohorts are smoking free.

MOH is opened to studying such a policy. But we need to take into account a few considerations. First, in Singapore's case, young people are generally not taking up smoking, unlike the youths in many other countries. Our youths today no longer see smoking as glamorous and are aware of its harms.

Second, our bigger challenge amongst the young people here are e-cigarettes, which are still tobacco products and harmful to the users, despite its fruity flavours. It is, therefore, outrightly banned here in Singapore. But with e-commerce, they still find their way here. We will need to do more to enforce the current ban, to push back against the tide of popularity and increasing use. If vaping becomes entrenched amongst the younger population, it undoes all the progress we made on curbing smoking and will take an enormous effort over many years to curb its use.

Although New Zealand have announced a cohort smoking ban, it promotes vaping as an alternative to smoking. So, over time, the habit may well shift from smoking to vaping, which in itself is still harmful.

Third, the challenge with a cohort ban is in enforcement. For such a ban to be effective, we would need to introduce laws to penalise older persons who are not subject to the ban but for abetting offences such as supplying tobacco products to the affected cohorts. A similar proposal was discussed in Parliament in 2016 when amendments to the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act were introduced, and MOH explained the challenge of implementation and enforcement then.

Nevertheless, we remain open to the idea. New Zealand’s announced ban will be the first time a country will be implementing such a ban at the national level. We will study how New Zealand implements the ban, its effectiveness and how their experience could be applied here to Singapore.

My Ministry will continue to enhance our approach to tobacco control, through public education, provision of smoking cessation services, legislation and taxation. We will also study new measures to further reduce access to tobacco products and tackle vaping, particularly among our youths.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether special covenant 2(1)(a) of the Memorandum of Lease to HDB's lease agreement can be enforced to prevent smoking near balconies or windows which persisted despite (i) advisories from the authorities and (ii) efforts of the Community Mediation Centre (CMC); and (b) if not, what other conditions must be met before a case of smoking near balconies or windows will be considered a case of last resort where enforcing the special covenant is considered.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): Enforcing the breach of a covenant under the lease agreement entails compulsory acquisition of the flat, as highlighted to the Member previously. This is a punitive measure that is not undertaken lightly. HDB exercises the right of compulsory acquisition sparingly and as a last resort. Moreover, should a flat be compulsorily acquired, the flat owners and occupants of the flat, such as their family members, will need to relocate and find a home elsewhere. If the underlying issues are not resolved, the issue will just be brought over to another community. 

Hence, the approach to manage disamenities and disputes between neighbours is for neighbours to come together to try to resolve the matter amicably, with assistance by grassroots leaders or at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) where required. Where necessary, a Joint Advisory on Smoking in Homes will be issued by agencies to the residential unit reported to be emitting second-hand smoke, encouraging considerate behaviour and emphasising the negative impact that second-hand smoke may have on their neighbours.

In intractable cases, the affected neighbour may file a case with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). If the respondent is shown to have caused unreasonable interference to the affected neighbour, then the CDRT may make a range of orders against the respondent, including requiring the respondent to cease or refrain from carrying out certain acts. 

We will continue to study how we can better manage neighbour disputes arising from disamenities. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what is the rationale for specifying five metres as the distance within which smoking is prohibited under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations considering that secondhand smoke can drift beyond that; and (b) whether the Ministry is considering increasing this distance; (c) if so, how will the new distance be determined; and (d) if not, why not.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (MSE): No smoking is allowed within five metres of certain smoking-prohibited places such as bus stops, and entrances and exits of public buildings. The five-metre buffer distance specified under the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Regulations was determined with reference to local and international standards for the intake of ambient air into building ventilation systems or building openings. This distance is also similar to buffer distances implemented overseas.

Given Singapore’s dense urban environment, five metres is a reasonable and realistic buffer distance to protect the public from second-hand tobacco smoke at certain smoking-prohibited places commonly accessible to the public. Nevertheless, my Ministry will review the smoking prohibition regulations from time to time.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Rationale for Legislating and Making High-rise Littering an Offence Despite Inherent Difficulty in Enforcement

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment what is the rationale for legislating and making high-rise littering an offence despite the inherent difficulty in enforcement.  

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Sir, littering in public places is an offence under section 17 of the Environmental Public Health Act 1987. This covers littering in a range of scenarios, including high-rise littering. There is no separate legislative provision for high-rise littering.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the short reply. I do know there is no separate legislation. But the question is really why are we enforcing so much on high-rise littering and, of course, why so little on second-hand smoke when it is very similar? And second-hand smoke is actually easier to detect than high-rise littering?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Well, this is a stealth question on second-hand smoke. With regard to the comment about why so many enforcement actions on high-rise littering, if I recall correctly, there are also many questions in the House regarding why there is not enough action taken against high-rise littering. So, the verdict is out there.

But having said that, this question about second-hand smoke, I think the Member has asked similar questions a number of times in this House and I have given replies as to the reason why there are technological limitations in enforcement against second-hand smoke in homes. I think enforcement of second-hand smoke in homes is really distinctively more challenging than high-rise littering. As I have said, I have answered this before. So, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me just briefly highlight some key points that I have actually shared in my previous replies.

Firstly, of course, technological limitations and also, privacy issues and concerns for second-hand smoke. It is not a question of just catching an image of the physical object but also capturing the heat signature as proof of the smoking act. So, you need not just require optical cameras but also thermal surveillance cameras, and there is a limited surveillance range of such surveillance cameras. And you need to put them off the ground, which means, it would be highly intrusive because it does not only train into the suspected unit, but also other units.

So, we will need to continue to monitor technological developments and innovations in this area to see if it is feasible in future, along with also what is being practised overseas.

But having said that, we are not resting on our laurels. Let me assure the Member that we are as concerned about this issue as he is. We are looking at various ways to address this. We fully empathise with the person who is actually experiencing this issue. 

In addition to monitoring technological developments, we are also intensifying our education and outreach efforts, working with the community, with HPB, with various stakeholders to really look at community solutions, in line with our aspiration to build an inclusive, gracious society. So, we need to raise awareness and appeal to smokers to be more civic-minded and socially gracious and appeal to all stakeholders to come together to resolve this amicably.

In addition, as Members have heard from the Second Minister for Law that there is an inter-agency, inter-Ministry Committee that is looking at revising or enhancing the community mediation framework to increase accessibility for such disputes to be resolved amicably as far as possible.

And then, last year, MND, together with MSO and HDB, has issued a joint call for proposals on tackling second-hand smoke from neighbouring homes. Essentially, looking for solutions like sensors as well as solutions to reduce the second-hand smoke at source or to prevent the second-hand smoke from entering the neighbouring units.

I think the practice is not static. We continue to look at how we can better address this issue and we will continue to monitor and review our smoking regulations from time to time.

So, it is an answer to the high-rise littering question.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Proceedings under Section 4 of Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 for Cases of Smoking Near Balconies or Windows in Homes Causing Nuisance to Neighbours

Louis asked the Minister for Law (a) whether proceedings can be brought under section 4 of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 for cases of smoking near balconies or windows in homes when the second-hand smoke interferes with a neighbour’s enjoyment of his property; and (b) if so, what kind of evidence will need to be presented in order to show such interference.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, my Ministry has previously provided the Member with statistics relating to claims brought in the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) for unreasonable interference caused by excessive smoke, which includes second-hand smoke. The Member will therefore be aware that claims can be brought under section 4 of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (CDRA) for cases of smoking near balconies or windows in homes when the second-hand smoke interferes with a neighbour's enjoyment of his or her property.

Section 4(1) of the CDRA states that a resident must not, by an act or omission, cause unreasonable interference with another neighbour's enjoyment or use of place of residence. Section 4(2)(a) states that the interference may include an act of causing excessive smell and smoke.

As a Court of Law, the CDRT requires a claimant to present sufficient evidence to show that the respondent caused excessive smoke and smell to such an extent that it causes unreasonable interference. That is the threshold and the test. Bare allegations are insufficient.

Any evidence that points towards the source of interference, the type of interference, or its intensity and surrounding circumstances, would therefore be relevant. Some examples include letters or contemporaneous messages which are exchanged between the neighbours which may point to or suggest the source of the second-hand smoke, written records that set out the specific dates and times of the acts in question and also show an established pattern of smoking, and if possible, photographs or video-recordings which capture the particular resident in the act of smoking.

In addition, the Member would also be familiar with the approach of the Community Dispute Management Framework (CDMF), which is to encourage neighbours involved in disputes to always first attempt direct, friendly discussions between neighbours, or mediation, and only file a claim with the CDRT as a measure of last resort. This approach emphasises communication and the building of relationships, in particular, between neighbours and recognises that a legalistic, litigious approach is not usually the best or most efficient way to resolve disputes in the community and it is certainly not the first port of call. This approach gives parties a better chance at reaching mutually acceptable solutions in a fast and amicable manner, without escalating the dispute through the process of evidence-gathering or trading allegations, as the case might be.

As separately conveyed to this House, an inter-agency committee led by MCCY is reviewing the CDMF and is studying a range of proposals. These include promoting neighbourliness as a way to reduce the likelihood of disputes arising in the first instance and also increasing the awareness and accessibility on the use of community mediation as the primary way to resolve disputes between neighbours.

Louis: Thank you, Sir, and I thank the Minister for the reply. In the last two months, over 2,400 people in Singapore have approached me for help with regard to them being affected by second-hand smoke in their homes. I think the massive number is not worrying, what is worrying is that only about 2% actually approached the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) or CDRT for help.

Could I ask Minister, what are we doing in terms of creating more awareness of CMC or CDRT option? Two, how can we make the whole process easier or more accessible to members of the public?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I think, the Member has in part, answered the question himself. CMC is something that is available, the threshold is low, and the cost, if I am not mistaken from memory, is $5 per claim. Sometimes, there are difficulties, of course, getting both sides to come to mediation. That is of course, understandable. And that is why the CDMF review committee is looking at measures, which I have explained in the prior written answer to this House. We are considering a range of options, including in some cases, mandating the mediation. So, that takes care of those cases where consensual mediation might not be possible.

In addition, if the matter escalates and, despite repeated attempts, there is no possibility of a consensual or a friendly or amicable resolution, then the Member is able to advise the resident to come to the CDRT. In that situation, obviously, the limitation is in part that there must be substantial evidence, at least substantial to the extend that you cross the relevant threshold in a manner which I have explained just now, because CDRT is an adjudicatory tribunal and it has to go on the basis of what is the appropriate remedy to impose, given the nature of the evidence.

And of course, the Act also sets out the circumstances which the tribunal will look at when considering the appropriateness of the remedy, bearing in mind that this is smoking within the confines of an individual's own home. Obviously, you have got to find a balance between what you do in your own home and the impact that you might have on another individual trying to have a quiet enjoyment of his or her own home. 

So, these are the options available with the consequential challenges that might apply. But these options will be looked at and enlarged as we review the CDMF to look at more substantial and also more practical solutions to solve these problems. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will consider banning smoking in casinos; and (b) what measures are in place to safeguard the health of people working in the areas of the casinos where smoking is allowed.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (MSE): Both casinos in Singapore have implemented smoking restrictions as part of their house rules. Smoking and non-smoking gaming areas in the casinos are separated. Measures are taken to mitigate the potential impact of second-hand tobacco smoke, such as maintaining negative air pressure in smoking gaming areas to prevent second-hand tobacco smoke from drifting into non-smoking areas; improving exhaust air flow rates to reduce accumulation of smoke; and the installation of ionisers within the casinos. The casinos also inform potential hires that they will be working in a smoking environment.

We will continue to review the smoking prohibition regulations from time to time.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Budget Cut at Committee of Supply 2022

Louis delivered his budget cut on Designate more No Smoking Zones as follow:

Louis: Sir, there is no risk-free level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Breathing in small amounts can be dangerous. I have spoken up a lot about protecting people from second-hand smoke in their own homes. It is equally important to protect everyone in public areas. I am glad Orchard Road was designated as Singapore’s first No Smoking Zone (NSZ). Our surveys show that there is strong support for this. 

Last year, I asked if the Government will designate other areas as NSZ. It has been a year and I hope MSE has monitored this space closely and will roll out more NSZ and prohibit smoking in more places. 

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment): Miss Cheryl Chan, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Poh Li San would be glad to hear that, together with PUB, NParks and the Sentosa Development Corporation, NEA will extend the smoking prohibition to more places including all remaining public parks and gardens, Active, Beautiful, Clean (ABC) Waters Sites and 10 beaches from 1 July 2022. 

In addition to neighbourhood parks in public and private housing estates where smoking is already prohibited, smoking will be prohibited at Regional and City Parks like East Coast Park and Fort Canning Park, and all Park Connectors. Smoking will also be prohibited at 10 recreational beaches, including three beaches in Sentosa. 

With this extension, Singaporeans can enjoy these shared recreational sites without exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. There will be a three-month advisory period before enforcement commences on 1 October 2022. 

We currently have no plans to set up additional No Smoking Zones. We will review the need for further extensions of the smoking prohibition from time to time. Setting up No Smoking Zones requires significant stakeholder buy-in and operation

Louis: Second, I thank the Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for sharing the details of the extension of the smoking prohibited areas. The same thing, could I ask whether we can have a roadmap in terms of expanding the no-smoking zone in Singapore. I really do thank the Senior Minister of State for all the hard work in addressing all my questions with regards to second-hand smoke. I sincerely wish and hope that would become her second most favourite topic after hawker culture.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his question, yet again, on second-hand smoke. But let me also thank the Member for acknowledging that we have provided him with comprehensive answers for the various questions he had posed on second-hand smoke. With regard to a roadmap, as I have said before, we continue to monitor and review if we can further extend our smoking prohibition from time to time. In fact, we continuously do this, in the area of second-hand smoke in homes as well as in public areas. This is something that we will continue to do. So, the roadmap really is about driving, continuing to work on it and continuing to look at how we can actually feasibly implement any extension of smoking prohibition to other areas. Because whatever we do, it will have to be operationally feasible as well as effectively enforced in order to make a difference.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Review of Enforcement Measures for Breach of HDB's Lease Agreement

Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry is reviewing the measures that can be taken to enforce a breach of a covenant of the Memorandum of Lease to HDB's lease agreement; and (b) whether a tiered penalty system can be incorporated.

Mr Desmond Lee (MND): The covenants of the Memorandum of Lease generally set out the acts and uses that are not permitted in HDB flats, in order to maintain a high-quality living environment for all residents. We are not currently reviewing measures that can be taken to enforce a breach of the lease covenants.

Where there is feedback of a possible breach, HDB will conduct investigations where necessary. In cases where an egregious breach has been committed and there is failure to rectify the breach despite warnings, HDB can consider compulsorily acquiring the flat. HDB exercises this right only as a last resort as compulsory acquisition is a harsh measure that is not undertaken lightly.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) to date, whether any action has been brought under section 43 of the Environmental Public Health Act in respect of cases of secondhand smoke drifting from a person’s home into a public corridor or public area; and (b) if not, why not.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (MSE): There have been no cases where action was taken under section 43 of the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) for second-hand smoke drifting from homes to public corridors or public areas. 

 As explained in this House previously, section 43 of the EPHA comes under Part 5, which was enacted in the 1960s to provide for quick mitigative actions to arrest public nuisances from specific industrial activities. It is not the EPHA’s purpose to deal with smoking prohibition.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)