Using Deterrence to Tackle Second-hand Smoke in Homes

Sir, last year, we delivered an Adjournment Motion in this House seeking increased protection against second-hand smoke in our homes. The answer was a no. Today, I wish I could report that the problem has been solved, that, actually, nothing needs to be done. But this is not the case. In fact, the problem has likely worsened. As the Senior Minister of State Sim Ann said recently, “Across many communities... our sense is that residential smoking has risen”.

Since our Motion, many Singaporeans have spoken up. On social media, in news media and in private messages, they report feeling tortured and trapped by their neighbours’ second-hand smoke. I will share the stories of these Singaporeans. I will also share that a law already exists that makes smoking near windows and at balconies illegal. We do not need a new law. And I will emphasise the power of deterrence, not just enforcement of this current law against smoking near windows and at balconies, but deterrence, a power that we have not sufficiently drawn on.

First, let me provide a reminder to this House on how deadly second-hand smoke is. About one person in Singapore dies every day due to second-hand smoke. This is based on the 383 deaths in 2016 and the number of deaths has been growing each year. Let us put this in context. This is about five times the number of people who have died in motor accidents; seven times the number of people who have died from the coronavirus; and 12 times the number of people who have died from workplace injuries.

Let me be clear. Deaths from motor accidents, the coronavirus and workplace injuries are all serious and all need our attention. Indeed, I have regularly spoken up on these very issues in this House. My point is that second-hand smoke needs our urgent attention, too. Unlike these other causes of death, there is no preventive measure you can take against second-hand smoke at home. You cannot, for example, take a vaccine. You can install an air purifier but, as MOH has said, it does not work. You can shut your windows but, as many residents know, it does not work. You can talk to your neighbours but, again, as many residents know, more often than not, it does not work.

One resident, Kim, shared with me about how she begged her neighbour, with her baby in her arms, about how his second-hand smoke was affecting her child. It did not work. You can move house like another resident, Jennifer, did. She has moved house three times in the past six years and has been unlucky enough to suffer from her neighbours’ second-hand smoke every time. She recently wrote to me at 1.30 am, saying, “Our neighbour is smoking and we are unable to sleep. We are literally dying in our sleep every day”. And honestly, how many people can afford to move house repeatedly to avoid the dangers of second-hand smoke? Is this fair for them?

Condominium residents do not have it any better. MCSTs have no power to fine their residents, regardless of their bylaws. A condominium resident, NC, spoke to her neighbour, who smokes throughout the day at her balcony and was told that what she was doing was legal despite the condominium bylaw prohibiting smoking at the balcony. NC is worried about the health of her two young children.

So, let us focus on how this affects our children. We all become sick from second-hand smoke, but the worst is saved for our children. In a recent study published just a few months ago, researchers concluded that children exposed to second-hand smoke from pregnancy to childhood were more likely to suffer from ADHD symptoms. And it is not just ADHD. Second-hand smoke causes severe respiratory infections, triggers more frequent and more severe asthma attacks, cough, wheezing, breathlessness, ear infections and a whole slew of other illnesses among young children.

Sir, these medical scenarios are not hypothetical. Parents write letters to me and they describe their lived experiences in these exact words. Their letters sometimes read like horror stories; they know something is killing their children, but they are helpless to do anything about it.

Take Ying Ying, a young mother with one child and another on the way. Her neighbour’s smoking has plagued her family for four years. It caused her firstborn to suffer from bronchitis. She is now terrified that her next child will suffer the same. To quote her, “Every time we want to open the windows for fresh air, we hesitate. Because we never know how much shorter our breath will become”.

Take another parent, Peter. His elder son is taking PSLE this year and studies at home while inhaling his neighbour’s second-hand smoke. His younger son has been coughing and sick as a result of the second-hand smoke. “It does not make sense to suffer like that,” Peter says.

And it is not just children. Kelvin shared with me about how he has a family member who has cancer and they are worried that the constant exposure to second-hand smoke will be bad for her already failing health. As he puts it, “We are losing our freedom for fresh air”.

We have always taken pride in being a safe nation. But for many, home is no longer a safe place. It is the place where their neighbours cause them to suffer asthma attacks, bronchitis, breathlessness, respiratory infections and they cannot do anything about it.

Sir, this Government acknowledges that this is a public health concern. The Health Promotion Board states, “You wouldn't put your child in danger by letting him play with fire. So, why risk your child’s heath by exposing him or her to second-hand smoke?” I am sure many parents agree with that. So, like me, they choose not to smoke. But they have no choice when it comes to someone else’s second-hand smoke. They need the Government to step in.

Here, we should remember that one of the most powerful forces in Singapore is deterrence. Indeed, it is fair to say that deterrence is at the cornerstone of our law and order. It explains why we have such low crime rates. But we know that deterrence does not happen out of thin air. It is a three-tier approach and you need to build it, starting from the bottom.

At the first tier, you must make clear that the bad behaviour is illegal. To be clear, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Sustainability and the Environment is not calling for smoking at home to be illegal. We know that it will be almost impossible to enforce a ban on smoking at home and there will be no deterrent effect of such a law as people will not be able to see people smoking inside their homes.

Sir, we are calling for the Government to make clear that smoking at windows and balconies is illegal. To be clear, a law already exists. Section 43 of the Environmental Public Health Act empowers NEA to take any step necessary to remove nuisances of a public nature. These nuisances, as defined in section 44, include “the issue of any fumes, vapours, gases, heat, radiation or smells in any premises which is a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to health.”

That sure sounds like second-hand smoke. Why is the Government not using this law to take a clear stance that smoking near windows and at balconies is illegal? Even without doing anything else, it would already reduce the problem of second-hand smoke in homes.

I am sure Senior Minister of State Amy Khor would agree with me that Singapore is, generally, a nation of law abiders. Singaporeans are terrified of breaking the law. It would also help neighbours mediate, as offenders can no longer say that their behaviour is perfectly legal. It would help give more bite to NEA officers who already give advisories to those smoking near windows and at balconies. Their words would have more impact if backed by the law. Section 43 can already be used to stop smoking near windows and at balconies. In this unprecedented period of home-based learning and work from home, this needs be done urgently.

The second tier for deterrence is awareness. Our authorities have historically been very good at this. We have all seen signs by the Police warning against scams, thefts and molestation. Again, we can make it clear that smoking near windows and at balconies is illegal under current laws. We can then leverage the new LCD screens at HDB lobbies to start an awareness campaign. These screens are near to where offences happen and are most likely to have a significant impact. Singaporeans respond when they know something is illegal.

The third tier for deterrence is enforcement. This is the point Senior Minister of State Amy Khor took issue with when we raised our Motion last year. To quote her: “Cameras must capture the smokers smoking or holding a lighted cigarette as evidence for enforcement. However, a smoker can easily hide behind a pillar, frosted glass, windows or curtains to avoid detection by the cameras. Overall, this may entail deployment of significant resources without achieving effective outcomes."

Let me first clarify that a smoker is unlikely to hide behind pillars, windows or curtains to smoke. As a former smoker, I can tell you that smokers smoke at open windows and balconies precisely to get the smoke out of their homes. It would defeat the purpose to hide behind some cover. If they do hide, like how Senior Minister of State Amy Khor describes, then it would be a good thing, not a bad thing, because it would help contain most of the smoke within their homes.

Senior Minister of State Amy Khor's concern is also about the cost and effectiveness of camera surveillance, but camera surveillance is just one of the many options. It is the last, last, last resort.

Let me stress again that once people are aware that smoking near windows and at balconies is illegal, the vast majority of people will comply with it. I cannot imagine a person continuing to smoke at their windows, committing an offence right in front of their neighbours in the nearby block. I am sure some neighbours will take photos of this and report the smoker or put it on social media. Deterrence, again, will kick in, before the need for enforcement.

For a small number of cases where smokers continue to smoke at windows and balconies, then enforcement kicks in. We start with advisories and then nuisance orders under the Environmental Public Health Act. As I have mentioned earlier, NEA officers already issue advisories today. But they are not backed by the threat of harsher penalties. So, they accomplish little. Used in conjunction with a law, however, such low-effort enforcement may be sufficient to end bad behaviour in most cases.

I have no doubt that the majority of people will comply once they realise that the penalty for not complying with nuisance orders under the Environmental Public Health Act is a fine of $10,000 for first-time offenders and in the second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.

There will be cases where the culprit repeats the offences despite the advisories or nuisance orders and stronger enforcement is needed. To collect further evidence, we can first draw on evidence from complainants. Complainants are often very capable of collecting evidence on their own. Indeed, we already ask residents to provide evidence of their neighbours smoking, such as photos or videos, when they bring a case to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal.

Second, NEA can conduct stakeouts. It already does this for high-rise littering and bird feeders. Both of these problems kill far less people than second-hand smoke. Surely, we can justify reallocating some resources.

Finally, surveillance cameras remain a viable last, last, last resort for a very small number of cases. This is the reality. We are not asking for surveillance cameras to be placed everywhere, throughout Singapore. This is not needed at all.

For the small number of cases where we need to deploy a surveillance camera, we can minimise concerns of privacy by doing what we already do: point it at the facade of the building.

These cameras are used by the authorities today to catch high-rise litterbugs. But they will actually work just as effectively for catching those smoking at windows and balconies. Let me show you some photos of these cameras. These photos show how these cameras can already capture someone smoking at their windows without invading the privacy of the smokers and their neighbours.

I will share these photos on my social media pages so everyone can see for themselves.

The good news also is that NEA has improved technology. NEA has collaborated with GovTech on Project Balefire, which aims to detect smoking activities using video analytics. This has helped to reduce the need for enforcement officers.

Sir, there is no law where we have successful enforcement 100% of the time. But in the case of smoking near windows or at balconies, the chances of a successful enforcement are much higher as compared to high-rise littering.

If we can catch someone throwing litter from their window in a fleeting moment, action that takes a couple of seconds. Then surely, we can catch someone smoking at the window for a few minutes at a time repeatedly throughout the day. Think about it.

The chances of catching someone smoking at the window are also infinitely higher than the odds of catching someone right inside their own homes naked. If the Police are able to enforce the law against being naked at home, then surely NEA can enforce the current law against smoking at windows and balconies.

Sir, we should be really clear about one thing: universal enforcement is not necessary. This should be common sense. There is no law where we enforce 100% of the time. We obviously do not have speeding cameras on every single road. In the same way, we would not need to install surveillance cameras at every housing estate.

Instead, what we need to do is enforce some cases and then publicise them. This will make clear that the authorities can and will take action. This is what we already do with so many public health hazards where universal enforcement is not possible: racing on roads, cycling on highways, PMDs on pavements, being naked in your own home, feeding of birds and so on.

We clean up a few bad eggs, we announce it to all Singaporeans and we make a point.

Sir, to conclude and to be absolutely clear, a law does already exist. Section 43 of the Environmental Public Health Act can already be used to penalise smoking near windows and at balconies and deterrence rather than enforcement is the key.

In this COVID-19 pandemic, we have tried so hard to keep people safe. This has meant keeping them at home for work and for studies. But this also meant many more are now exposed to the silent pandemic of second-hand smoke at home.

People need to feel safe in their homes again. Deterrence is a power we have not used enough. Let us use it so Singaporeans feel safe in their homes again.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of this Motion. Everyone is well aware of the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. The World Health Organization revealed that annually 1.2 million non-smokers die from exposure to second-hand smoke. One point two million! And 65,000 children die from illnesses related to its poisonous and harmful chemicals. It has also been found that exposure to second-hand smoke during pregnancy increases the risk of stillbirth, congenital malformations and respiratory illnesses.

With such comprehensive findings, it is evident that second-hand smoke has the same adverse toxic chemicals that smokers inhale. There is no safe degree of exposure for passive smoke.

Unfortunately, I happen to be a passive smoker. Let me share my personal experience with everyone.

I am residing above a neighbour who smokes by his window numerous times a day.

A window is meant for natural air ventilation and definitely not for cigarette smoke to be emitted into our homes. Hence, whenever my neighbour below smokes, I will have to keep my window closed.

On the other hand, I have a considerate neighbour who would take his smoke breaks near the car park a few times a day. The neighbour does this because he does not wish to expose his young son and his wife to his second-hand smoke.

Over the past year, many of my Sembawang West residents have sent me troubling emails about them being exposed to second-hand smoke emitted by their neighbours. Given the rising number of people having to work from home as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, this will be a concern that we will have to address.

I am certain that there are numerous similar complaints that my fellow Members of Parliament in this House have had to deal with. Most of the time attending to such complaints do not end well and would usually be compromising the much-needed harmonious environment amongst neighbours.

There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to help the innocent victims of second-hand smokers. Town Council, HDB, NEA and even Police officers have been called upon to assist residents in some of these incidents. However, no one, including myself as their representative Member of Parliament, has any legal right to stop anyone from smoking at their window or balconies.

While we can understand that it is not possible for a smoker to be able to quit smoking easily, it is important for smokers to understand that they need to be considerate and behave like my other neighbour who walks to a smoking or an open area to smoke.

It is not fair to expose non-smokers to the dangerous toxic chemicals caused by cigarette smoke – period. Smokers must always remind themselves to smoke only at allocated spots.

Under the Smoking Act, there is a list of places where smoking is allowed; some of these locations include open spaces in residential estates and town centres, surface car parks, top deck of multistorey car parks and uncovered walkways. Unfortunately, it is often seen that most smokers light up wherever convenient for them.

Similarly, I would also like to clarify section 43 of the Environment Public Health Act. The intent of this Act is to protect residents from any fumes, vapours, example, in any premises which are dangerous to health. Then, should second-hand smoke from cigarettes not be included in this category? I would like to request that MSE consider second-hand smoke as hazardous to health.

Separately, we should continue to have targets to bring down the number of smokers over the next five to 10 years.

Our National Tobacco Control Programme introduced in 1986 had a long-term strategy to make Singapore a “nation of non-smokers”. In 2018 we had announced a target to bring the smoking rate down to below 10% by 2020.

In the recent announcement made on 11 July 2021, we achieved a smoking prevalence rate of 10.1%, just slightly shy of the 10% target.

Personally, I believe that many smokers do wish to stop smoking but being addicted to the habit, it is often easier said than done.

It would be good if we could introduce more aggressive campaigns to help those who sincerely wish to stop smoking and also to introduce a convincing message on the dangers of smoking to our children at an early age.

Singapore must continue to inch steadily towards achieving a “nation of non-smokers”.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a norm to work from home these days. The home is now an office for most working Singaporeans and with that growing trend, we must consider the circumstances that non-smoking Singaporeans are in. Their home now substitutes an office which is often located in a commercial district. Offices in all commercial districts do not allow smoking. If you wish to smoke while working in a commercial office, you will have to go downstairs to an allocated area to smoke.

We are simply requesting for some consideration for smokers not to smoke at their windows or balconies.

There is no doubt that second-hand smoke threatens public health and social harmony. The living environment of non-smokers must be addressed. I am in favour for the call to ban smoking at all balconies and windows. Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of this Motion.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Members for their impassioned pleas regarding second-hand tobacco smoke in homes. Let me assure everyone that we also take this matter seriously and are doing what we practically and reasonably can to tackle this issue.

As part of our national health policy to discourage smoking and protect the public from second-hand smoke, we have expanded smoking prohibition extensively, to more than 32,000 places. In residential areas, this includes common corridors and stairwells of apartment blocks, right up to the doorstep.

We are now looking into extending the smoking prohibition to even more places.

Through concerted efforts, Singapore’s smoking prevalence has been driven down to 10.1% in 2020, half the global average of 20%.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Poh Li San have asked my Ministry to prohibit smoking at windows and balconies to minimise second-hand smoke drift. We appreciate their intent but as previously explained during a Motion on the same issue in October last year, enforcement is not simple.

First, let me clarify the intent of sections 43, 44 and 45 in Part V of the Environmental Public Health Act or EPHA, which are on the abatement of public nuisances through the use of Nuisance Orders and explain why they cannot be used to prohibit smoking at windows and balconies.

This part of the EPHA was enacted in the context of 1960s Singapore to provide for quick mitigative action to arrest public nuisances from specific industrial activities. It is not the purpose of the EPHA to deal with smoking prohibition. This is why the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act was enacted in 1970. Part V of the EPHA addresses public nuisances that affect the public at large and not private nuisances which interfere with another person’s use or enjoyment of his property, which is the situation with smoking in homes.

To achieve deterrence, not only do we need the appropriate law, we also need effective enforcement. Unfortunately, NEA’s assessment is that this is not achievable with current enforcement modalities and technology. If we were to prohibit smoking at windows and balconies, we can be sure that there will be smokers who will find ways to avoid getting caught. They could smoke in balcony corners, or in toilets with windows or ventilation fans, which some already do. Smoke will inevitably seep out and can still travel to neighbouring units. So, the problem remains.

We cannot prosecute people based solely on complaints of smell or smoke wafting from neighbouring units. We have to catch the offender in the act of smoking at the balcony or window, or have witnesses come forward to testify that they witnessed the act. Yet complainants are often unable to accurately identify the source of the smell or smoke. Each case will require extensive manpower and resources to investigate, with no guarantee of successful enforcement.

Furthermore, to undertake investigation, we will need to accept significant social trade-offs. As noted, smokers who want to evade enforcement are unlikely to stand in full view at the balcony or window. To clearly capture a person in the act of smoking at windows and balconies, cameras would have to be of a sufficient resolution and trained directly into units. Their field of view would also cover neighbouring units and potentially include innocent neighbours engaged in other activities. Are we prepared for such intrusive measures?

These are just some of the many challenges faced in catching the culprit, given current technology. Residents could become even more frustrated, as there is a law but with great enforcement difficulties.

Even for high-rise littering, where there has been a significant number of successful enforcements, many still express frustration that offenders have not been caught, an issue that has also been discussed in this House.

As people spend more time at home nowadays, NEA has stepped up its enforcement efforts in HDB estates to address the issue of second-hand smoke in homes. Eleven thousand tickets were issued in 2020 compared to 7,100 in 2019 for smoking in prohibited areas such as common corridors and stairwells of flats which can lead to second-hand smoke in homes.

While this would be of little comfort to our Members Mr Louis Ng and Ms Poh Li San, Singapore is not alone in grappling with this intractable issue. Other jurisdictions have attempted regulation and when doing so, they have done so on a very selective basis, and more importantly, they have not experienced clear success.

Norfolk, Virginia, banned smoking in public housing rental units in 2018. Non-compliance could result in the termination of the tenant's lease, a huge consequence. The situation improved in the first month but, within a year, the situation had reverted to what it had been previously, as smokers resumed smoking at home.

Why so? While the consequences were real and serious, the chances of being caught were not.

We also need to recognise that there are wide-ranging views on this issue, which touches fundamentally on an individual's right in his own home. Prohibiting smoking in homes, even if just at windows and balconies, is controversial. Homes are private spaces and it can be viewed as intrusive for governments to regulate what people can and cannot do there.

Last year, the city and county of San Francisco put forward a proposal to prohibit smoking in all multi-unit residences. The legislation did not garner enough votes and was not enacted as some tenants contended that the ban would infringe on their personal rights inside their homes.

For Singapore, we must address this potentially divisive issue in a way which strengthens rather than hinders our efforts to cultivate a gracious and cohesive society. For example, residents are coming together to discuss ground-up solutions to address neighbourly issues, including second-hand smoke in homes under the Municipal Services Office or MSO's "Love Our 'Hood" initiative. MSO has rolled this out in Mountbatten and Pioneer and will be bringing it to Bukit Gombak.

We will also keep a lookout for innovations and technological solutions. In June, two Designated Smoking Points, or DSPs, with improved designs were set up in Clementi as a community pilot project. We will monitor the outcome of this latest pilot study on the effectiveness of DSPs to reduce smoking in homes.

Last Friday, MND called for proposals for innovative solutions on managing second-hand smoke from neighbouring homes. Technological solutions that remove second-hand smoke at source or prevent its drift could bring reprieve to affected residents. We hope to see promising submissions from enterprises.

The pandemic has been a difficult time for all. For many, this has led to heightened tensions and fewer interactions among neighbours. Where there are problems of second-hand smoke from homes, I encourage neighbours to communicate with one another as a first step towards resolving the matter.

My Ministry has worked with various agencies to enhance joint advisories issued to smokers. In fact, most smokers cooperate and thus far, less than 10% of the feedback we received recur within a year.

My Ministry is also part of a workgroup that is reviewing the Community Dispute Management Framework. We are proposing enhancements to increase the effectiveness of the community mediation process and the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal. The workgroup will share updates in due course.

I want to assure Members that we are committed to tackling second-hand smoke from homes and are monitoring global best practices and developments in technology and legislation. We stay open to innovative and practicable solutions and will continue to draw on the ideas and efforts of all stakeholders to address this issue for a more gracious and cohesive society.

Thank you, Sir. Just a quick clarification.

The whole Adjournment Motion is about using deterrence, not enforcement. I am just wondering whether MSE feels that if there is a law, whether there will be a deterrent effect and whether there is going to be a need where 100% of Singaporeans do not comply with the law? I cannot imagine that to be the case and I wonder whether Senior Minister of State Amy Khor can share her views on that.

As I have said, deterrence will only be achieved not just with an appropriate law but when there is effective enforcement.

I think it is the case, with all the laws that we enforce, we know that we cannot be everywhere. Our law enforcement officers cannot be everywhere. But the fact would be that if the potential offenders know that it is easy to evade the law, that the chance of getting caught is very, very low, then it will not be an effective deterrent.

The example I gave of Norfolk, Virginia, is such an example where they implemented the legislation, there was some improvement within a short period but, after a year, it was back to normal because the residents knew that it was very difficult to enforce the legislation. So, for deterrence to be effective – obviously, when you have a legislation, it is for deterrence. You actually do not really want to enforce it if nobody breaks the law. But at the end of the day, if you cannot enforce it effectively, then it is not going to be a useful deterrent.