Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) (Amendment) Bill

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, more than three decades have passed since the official beginnings of our journey towards a nation of non-smokers. Way back in 1986, posters already warned that smoking causes lung cancer and heart attacks. Over the years, as more research and statistics about the health risks of smoking and second-hand smoke surfaced, public awareness campaigns all over the world have also become increasingly graphic and aggressive. Nevertheless, the effect is limited, especially on those who have already picked up the habit. For those of us who have friends and family members who smoke, many of them are kind enough to walk away when they need a puff. They clearly understand the effects of smoking, and they do not wish to cause harm to their loved ones, yet they are doing this to themselves.

That is the battle against cigarette addiction that forms the backdrop to what we discuss today. There are several aspects of the Bill I welcome wholeheartedly and several places it can go further. With the amendments in the Bill that will help designate most of the Orchard Road precinct as a smoke-free area, I believe more Singaporeans and tourists, especially families with children, can look forward to having a more comfortable leisure and shopping experience. The increased powers to manage prohibited smoking spots is, hopefully, an indication that there are further plans to implement smoking prohibition in more places, not just in Orchard Road.

I am pleased that the Bill takes into consideration the welfare of our NEA officers. Certainly, uncooperative offenders who abuse our officers deserve to be apprehended.

However, even if we enhance enforcement powers and prohibit smoking in more places, it is pointless if people continue to light up where they should not if they believe they can get away with it. Lack of enforcement continues to be a problem that undermines the effectiveness of this policy. It is a difficult task to catch a smoker red-handed. Most people do not smoke beyond a few minutes. So, even if a report is made, by the time an NEA officer comes, the smoker would have left. Most people are afraid to take front-view pictures of smokers because it may escalate into a conflict. So, requesting for pictorial evidence of illegal smoking, too, has its limitations. And, despite the numerous closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras installed in public areas, these devices are meant to monitor and deter crimes. This is even happening in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates, where the offender is a resident. Despite numerous reports from other affected residents, the NEA officers are unable to book the offender red-handed, so the smoker continues to get away scot-free.

I hope the authorities will address the difficulties of catching and penalising smoking at prohibited areas.

Moreover, I am disappointed to learn that residential homes remain out of the authorities’ regulation when it comes to smoking. I understand the challenges. Everyone deserves the freedom to do what he or she likes in their own homes, as long as we do not break the law or harm anyone. So, the question we need to ask is: does smoking in one’s own house cause harm or is injurious to anyone’s health? When they smoke in the presence of family members, especially young children, without a doubt, the answer is yes. When the smoke drifts out of the window and infiltrates a neighbour’s house, that is another definite yes. Conflicts between HDB neighbours over cigarette smoke crossing over into other houses are increasingly on the rise.

Sir, not only do we have to do more, we also have to move fast. Like all addictions, once smoking takes root, it is challenging to be smoke-free. So, many countries are trying, and failing. One can argue that if other countries cannot do it, why should we be so “kia-su” and so "kia-si"? We can rest on our laurels and wait for someone to work out a solution and then we adapt it for our own use. But no, we are Singapore, a small nation capable of accomplishing lofty ambitions. We eradicated opium smoking, despite one in four Chinese adults being addicted to opium in 1933. Undesirable and common habits like spitting and vandalism by way of chewing gum are shadows of the past. I am confident that we can eradicate smoking that affects neighbours if the authorities are firm about it.

If accessibility to cigarettes is greatly reduced, then we need not worry about enforcement. It is high time to look into heavily restricting tobacco sales in Singapore.

We can start with a gradual approach by rationing the amount of sales and drastically increasing taxes on cigarettes. We can channel the extra taxes back into programmes that help people quit smoking. We need not ban the act of smoking itself, but we can make cigarettes much less available.

In the interim, more support and assistance must be available for smokers across all demographics to help them kick the habit, if they wish to. However, in raising the legal smoking age, some young smokers who have been smoking illegally may be afraid to come forward to seek help, so this is something to consider. Perhaps, we need to strengthen education on the ills of smoking in primary schools and secondary schools. May I suggest also to give the principals and teachers more free hand to mete out measures that are deemed appropriate for each case. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): This Bill will allow the Government to set up more designated smoking areas and better protect the NEA officers who are enforcing the law. These are all good ideas. However, even with these regulations, smokers can still light up at smoking-prohibited areas and get away with it. This is because many people are afraid to take a front shot of the smoker's face and the enforcement officers may not be able to reach there before the smoker stubs out. I hope the Government can explore how to address these enforcement challenges.

What is more, many people smoke in their own homes, posing a risk to their family members, especially the children. It will also affect the living environment of the neighbours. Recently, there have been many conflicts caused by this problem. This is also something that the Government should look into.

Once the smoker is addicted, it will be very difficult to kick the habit. Hence, we should have more drastic reforms. We should consider restricting tobacco sales even more and increase tobacco tax. With the additional tax revenue, we can help smokers to stop smoking.

These measures seem very bold. But compared to the harm done by smoking and second-hand smoking to people's health, they are worthy of our serious consideration.

(In English): But we need stronger measures to fulfil our vision of a smoke-free nation, not for the glory of being the first nation to achieve it, not to become another glowing statistic, but for the well-being of the current generation of Singaporeans and beyond.

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. Eighty-five percent to 90% of the 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 Organization 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 cancer. Children and pregnant women are particularly susceptible to the effects of second-hand 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 what 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 one another, 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 every day 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 perfect solution. But my hope is that the Ministry would study this issue further, do a public consultation about it and try 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 United States (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 to 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, 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. The 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 locating a smoking facility under section 3B? This would be very important. I raise this as in 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. A 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 the 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 non-uniformed 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.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I support the move on the general expansion of places to be prescribed as specific places with the intent to have more smoke-free public areas, in line with the overall goal of discouraging smoking among the population and with the hope that such restrictions will protect the rights of non-smokers to breathe in clean air, that is, smoke-free air, and for smokers to gradually reduce smoking and eventually give up the habit. Smoke-free areas will help reduce a non-smoker’s exposure to harmful second-hand cigarette smoke.

Sir, I understand that the Government’s long-term policy goal is to prohibit smoking in all public areas except at Designated Smoking Areas, to protect the non-smokers from the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke.

In this case, enforcement is going to be a real challenge even though it is an offence for a person to smoke in these smoke-free areas. Therefore, the onus must be on the operators and premises managers to stop patrons, visitors, customers and staff from smoking in such prohibited areas or request that they leave the premises, which may affect their businesses. There must be public education to encourage and empower non-smokers to step up by reminding smokers not to light up in smoking prohibited areas. There are also concerns that if the community were to be bold enough to do so, they can inevitably be abused by the smokers. Therefore, it is important that we also educate our smokers to smoke responsibly with the community in mind and to do so in smoking areas only.

Sir, though I support the Bill, I have the following comments and clarifications.

Sufficient time should be provided for managers and owners of the specified places to set up a designated smoking facility. Many conscious non-smokers are of the view that having a designated smoking facility is, indeed, a compromise by the authority and that the Government should work towards removing such provision completely in the long term.

In anticipation of backlash among some segments of the population, there is also a need to explain the caveat that comes with the no-smoking zone within the prohibited areas, that there will be designated areas where smoking is still permitted.

A generic concern would be, when we prohibit the sales of a commodity, there will be a likelihood of a black market. Applying the same concept, by further restricting the areas that people can smoke, are we inevitably creating “black zones”?

How can we ensure a good balance of prohibition, regulation and enforcement to ensure that smokers comply with the regulations without having to dramatically increase enforcement officer presence? If we are very serious about making the large part of Singapore a smoke-free city, can we make use of the latest technology, predictive analytical programmes as well as AI, to identify violations and potential violations by smokers as well as errant operators? Similar to Snap Safe apps introduced by MOM for snapping unsafe work practices, we can also create Snap Smoking apps to empower Singaporeans to report such violations real time.

There is a need to review the level of penalty for those who breach the law. The current penalty does not send a stern warning to those who are affecting the non-smokers who are in most danger of passive smoke.

Sir, notwithstanding this, I thank the Government for making this an important subject to ensure every Singaporean has the right to live in a clean and green environment and that they are also entitled to breathe smoke-free air. This would also serve to help us with our endeavour to be environmentally friendly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am in full support of this Bill which will move us closer to our goal of a cleaner, smoke-free environment and a healthier nation. With the amendments to increase the number of places where smoking is banned and to entrust our enforcement officers with additional powers, I am confident we will see further progress in our fight against the scourge of smoking.

In popular and crowded places, such as the Orchard Road shopping belt, legislation to designate all public areas within it as part of an NSZ will allow everyone, young and old, to enjoy cleaner air free from pollution. Smokers need not despair. There are designated smoking areas in an NSZ which will provide them with an outlet.

Enforcement is key to ensure law compliance. Additional powers of entry, taking photographs and videos will enable our officers to carry out their duties more effectively and are necessary to conduct proper investigations.

I would like to ask what measures, especially the use of technology, the Ministry has and will be using to facilitate and increase the efficiency of enforcement, especially the common issue of neighbours’ smoke drifting into other homes in our housing estates, as shared earlier on by a few hon Members.

I also want to share this picture from The Straits Times in case Members missed it after the National Day Rally. It is a very interesting one after the Prime Minister had mentioned Home Improvement Programme II (HIP II), the wish list from residents. So, the wish list is whether they can have a fan to blow the harmful second-hand smoke back into the smoker's face. Just in case Members missed it. That is the wish list for HIP II.

For years, non-smokers have been complaining about neighbours smoking at their window ledges, along common corridors and at landings between staircases. I think this is a common issue that all of us faced as Members of Parliament during the Meet-the-People sessions. The resultant air pollution not only causes discomfort, for residents with health problems, the smoke can even trigger an asthma attack. Families with vulnerable young children and elderly members are particularly concerned. Non-smokers also complained about smoking at coffee shops and inconsiderate smokers smoking in the public lifts. Smoking is one of the main causes of friction in our community and disputes among neighbours, as pointed out by Members earlier on. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Unfortunately, despite public knowledge about the harmful effects of smoking and the additional problems created by second-hand and third-hand smoke, the number of smokers in our midst have not gone down as much as we would like. In the last 10 years, our population’s smoking rate had been hovering between 12% and 14%. Last year, it was at 12%, the lowest to date.

I have been receiving feedback from smokers who are very unhappy and who are asking for a limit to the number of measures against smoking, including increasing the tobacco excise duty by 10% in this year’s Budget. They ask for understanding from non-smokers and protest the deprivation of their spaces of freedom and enjoyment. On the other hand, non-smokers are calling for a total ban. They are against environments with smoke pollution.

We can consider effective measures and best practices in other countries to strike a balance between the two groups, for example, setting up smoking rooms with air filters or purification machines in public facilities, office buildings and shopping malls.

At the same time, we must persist in continuing our public education to let our citizens understand the harm of smoking more deeply. We have to pay special attention to our younger generation to prevent them from picking up the bad habit of smoking or follow in the footsteps of older smokers.

I believe that some smokers, influenced by our environment, will see the light sooner or later, and once they understand, they will naturally be determined to abandon this bad habit which is harmful to others and themselves. With all these measures, before long, we will definitely be able to reach a smoking rate below 10%.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have long been concerned about the dangerous effects of smoking and thus strongly support the amendments to the Bill which I hope will help to reduce the prevalence of smoking.

Tobacco is a slow and silent killer with an extensive reach. Its fumes blight all who inhale, including unwilling victims through second-hand smoke. Its menace lingers in a vicinity long after the smoker has left, through third-hand smoke which clings to surfaces, posing a health hazard to anyone exposed to it.

One of the key amendments in the Bill will allow the Government to designate NSZs. I hope, in future, we can go even further by turning our entire island into a smoke-free zone where smokers could only smoke in designated smoking areas. Clean, unpolluted air is a precious resource which is everyone’s right.

Naturally, I also support the move to provide stronger regulatory powers to our enforcement officers to conduct thorough investigations without hindrance, such as the powers of entry and permits to take photographs and videos as part of their inspections.

Smoking is addictive and harmful. Yet, despite awareness about smoking’s impact on health, a significant number of Singaporeans and residents cannot get rid of their nicotine addiction. Their smoking habit caused much discomfort to those around them. Many residents complain to me about neighbours who smoke. Smoke spreads out of the smokers’ windows and pollutes neighbouring homes and the public corridors. Smoking in stairwells and elevators are also a problem. In coffee shops, the fumes from the smokers who sit in the outdoor area blow into the indoor dining area. Some smokers also litter. The cigarette butts are not only dirty and unsanitary, they pose a fire hazard.

I have a proposal that I hope the Minister can consider. We should forbid the spread of cigarette smoke in residential areas. Anyone who wants to smoke in their homes must ensure that their cigarette smoke does not escape from their apartments and flats to pollute the environment outside their homes. In other words, windows and doors should be closed when smoking. Smokers may consider installing an air filter in their rooms. They should not be standing near the windows, doors or corridors to smoke. If smoke is detected outside of the flat, the resident should then be considered to have violated the law. As a first step, neighbours should try to persuade the neighbours who are smoking to smoke in a more considerate way, either by talking to them directly or through relevant agencies. If it does not work, then they may ask the enforcement officers to step in.

Another suggestion is to set up a smoking room in a coffee shop near a walkway that is not frequently used. Residents complain that on the way to the Mass Rapid Transit station, shops or clinic, they have to hold their breath when passing by coffee shops. Setting up smoking rooms in these coffee shops is a win-win solution, allowing smokers and non-smokers to co-exist in harmony. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the impending changes that will be introduced to the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Amendment Bill. While it may still be a long while before we become a smoke-free society, it is a step forward when we broaden the scope to have more designated NSZs and enhancing the responsibilities as well as enforcement that can be carried out by specific appointed groups beyond the agencies.

Second-hand smoke is known to pose health hazards and researchers have shown that it does contain the same harmful chemicals that smokers inhale. There is just no safe level of exposure for second-hand smoke and it is known to cause cancer, apart from other health issues.

Why then does this become a social issue? Simply because this is a topic beyond personal choices but rather it encompasses infringement of the rights of others. For the young children and those who are non-smokers, they surely have a right of not being constantly exposed to second-hand smoke.

Let me cite two examples to illustrate how helpless some people will feel under such circumstances. Both incidents were during my house visits at different locations.

I recalled the first incident was when I was walking down a common corridor at one of the HDB flats. The distinct smell of tobacco was lingering in the air. As I was entering one of the flats, that smell was clearly overpowering over that unit. For a moment, I thought there must be some heavy chain smoker living in that unit. But that was not the case. The lady owner, a mother of two young children, actually pointed out to me, and had an aggrieved look, when she said this. She said that she had to seal up all the front windows facing the common corridor, shut her main door and turn on the air-conditioning for many hours each day whenever her preschoolers were at home. She simply had no choice as several members of her immediate neighbouring units are chain smokers. The crux of the issue was that her neighbours would not be smoking within their units and preferred to do so along the common corridor or even at the common staircase.

At another block of flats, other residents raised similar concerns but, this time, it is about smoking at the stairwell and by non-residents. They have identified some of these smokers as underaged youths, and others were tenants who lived in the rental flats. The secondary issue that resulted from their smoking is the random littering of cigarette butts at the stairwell and parapets. Now, the question becomes one of fairness and enforcement. Do the others who are non-smokers have to bear with the inconsiderate actions of the smokers and do the cleaners have to suffer from picking up after the smokers?

With this context in mind and for better understanding of how the amendments will subsequently be instituted, I would like to seek several clarifications from the Minister.

One, what are the public areas in Singapore that will be prioritised by NEA to be designated as NSZs? Can the Minister share the guidelines of how this will be decided?

Two, is there a timeframe in which the new NSZs will be implemented throughout Singapore?

Three, for residential estates, are we likely to see an increase of designated smoking facilities and what are the guidelines for a smoking facility to be considered complying to acceptable standards?

Four, to reduce the probability of second-hand smoke in residential estates, especially for HDB dwellings, will the common staircases and common corridors be marked as NSZs for a start?

Five, the Bill stated that a manager of a specified place who fails to ensure that the smoking facility in the specified place complies with the prescribed requirement commits an offence. As these individuals are likely to be the managing agent or volunteers of the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST), what enforcement powers will be conferred to the individual who is carrying out his or her duties in order to protect them?

Lastly, for implementation of the Bill within the private condominiums after it is enacted, is there a requirement for the MCST to gain consensus and pass a resolution for this addition to their by-laws before a specific room or place within their compound can be designated as a NSZ? In cases where the MCST is unable to gain majority consensus for the resolution, what recourse can members supportive of the Act have?

As reflected in the clarifications that I sought, implementation will be critical when the Bill is passed. Only time will tell how much effect the Bill will bring about, how smokers and non-smokers can live within the shared spaces, and what pressure will society impress upon smokers as the general population becomes aware of the harmful effects to health.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while I support the Bill, I believe that social responsibilities of individuals have more bearing in improving the situation as there is never sufficient enforcement that can be carried out on the ground. Nevertheless, I look forward to the implementation of the Bill as it will bring about the necessary changes that impact others on a topic which is not one of preference, but a changing social attitude in our country.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to, firstly, commend MEWR as well as NEA for all the efforts thus far in gradually extending smoke-free areas in Singapore. This is clearly not good news to all the smokers. But for the majority who crave for clean air wherever they go, the national effort in creating and promoting a smoke-free lifestyle in Singapore is a welcome one.

I would like to take this opportunity though to convey some of the issues on the ground reflecting the challenges in the enforcement of the Act as it stands, together with the proposed amendments.

Firstly, a common complaint that many of us, as Members of Parliament, would have received is the feedback on the smoking occurring within residential units. This issue, which had been discussed in Parliament before, was also raised by my colleagues earlier. Smoking within residential homes is understandably not prohibited. In fact, with all the extension of smoke-free areas, the home is probably one of the few spaces left for the smoker to smoke in peace. However, the problem occurs when the resident smokes while standing at his or her window or balcony. The smoke, and often the ash, travel to his or her neighbours’ homes. This causes much grievance to other residents in the block.

I recall that one of my residents who complained about this issue lamented that it is ironical that with so much regulation to create a smoke-free environment in public spaces, he and his family members are unable to enjoy a smoke-free environment in their own homes. On one occasion, I received a poignant plea from a resident living in a condominium. He is a lung cancer survivor and is naturally concerned about breathing in passive smoke. His neighbour, however, has a habit of smoking at his window. So, this resident had to constantly close his windows and stuff a cloth at the bottom of his main door, just so that the smoke does not travel into his unit. He begged for the managing agent, MSCT and NEA to intervene. There was little that could be done, save for advising and encouraging the neighbour to stop smoking from the window. The situation improved after some time but would recur once in a while. My grassroots leaders and the managing agent would try their best to assist to address the feedback whenever it is raised. But this is clearly not the most ideal resolution of the matter.

The second issue that I would like to highlight is the lack of cooperation of smokers in the absence of enforcement. From the feedback that I have received on the ground, smokers do not appear to comply with the rules and can be quite defiant when reminded by others not to smoke in certain places. Some can be seen smoking in the parks within the housing estates and, when told not to do so by passers-by, will arrogantly state that there is no one around to issue them the summons. I have received this feedback from many residents and friends.

Related to this point, there seems to be a lack of understanding about the rules relating to smoking in sheltered walkways or drop-off points. Some smokers seem to think that when it rains, it is unreasonable to disallow them to smoke in covered spaces when it is raining. I have received feedback from people who see smokers at sheltered walkways during the rain and also appeals from those who feel that they should not be penalised if they were caught smoking while seeking refuge from the rain.

In light of the feedback mentioned above, I believe there is still some way to go for us to look into beefing up enforcement and, more importantly, educating people about the efforts in creating a smoke-free environment for all, especially our future generation.

I would like, therefore, to seek some clarification on the current strength of the enforcement team. I note the efforts in recruiting volunteer enforcement officers. I would like to know if there is a sensing of the enforcement capacity required to match the growing smoke-free areas. Would the current capacity be sufficient to deal with the patrolling and enforcement that need to be carried out at the new specified places where smoking will be prohibited? If not, what are the efforts to build on this capacity? Has the current effort in tapping on volunteers been successful?

In relation to the issue of smoking in residential homes, are there any enhancements to rules that could be put in place to regulate the conduct of smokers in private spaces which impacts on others? I understand that this is extremely difficult to control and there are various views on the matter. There are residents who feel strongly that there should not be regulation that impinges on what they can or cannot do at home. However, I feel that what needs to be emphasised is the adverse impact on others.

In this regard, could we consider some penalties when second-hand tobacco smoke is expelled out of a residential home? I understand that the matter is not quite straightforward. For example, the enforcement of this would require evidence which may be tricky to obtain. I feel though, if someone repeatedly commits the offence, it would be possible to track the unit from which the smoke comes from and issue a notice. I also feel that the enforcement approach could be in phases, with the issuance of a warning first. In any case, the legislation would send a strong message about the seriousness of the matter and deter residents from smoking at the windows or balconies.

At the end of the day, I feel that public education is the most important in encouraging people to embrace the importance and value of a smoke-free environment. I truly appreciate the current efforts already in place. One message we could amplify is the impact of smoking on others. Smokers do not appear to appreciate the value of the rules in place but are, rather, only triggered by the fear of enforcement. The softer and tandem approach of educating and supporting them to quit smoking should be enhanced and amplified to reach out to more.

I understand that there are many challenges, and I truly appreciate the effort and multiple approaches taken by the Ministry and NEA in tackling the issue. Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members for speaking in support of the Bill. Let me now address their queries in turn.

Members have voiced concerns about the harm posed by passive cigarette smoke to vulnerable groups, such as the young and the elderly, and asked what more can be done. Some, including Miss Cheryl Chan, have also asked whether more NSZs are being planned.

The NSZ in Orchard Road is a new initiative. We decided on the shopping belt because the area experiences significant and dense pedestrian traffic and is a site for alfresco activities. Support from stakeholders was another consideration. We had strong backing for our plans from businesses and building owners, led by the Orchard Road Business Association.

We also considered the availability of suitable locations for Designated Smoking Areas (DSAs), given that the NSZ would cover a relatively large area with numerous commercial premises. Since 2015, NEA has been working with building owners in Orchard Road to allocate sufficient space for DSAs. Today, about 40 DSAs can be found across the prospective NSZ. As far as possible, these DSAs are located away from the main thoroughfare along Orchard Road, to ensure smoking is contained and not done in clear view of passers-by, especially impressionable youths. This will help protect public health and avoid normalising smoking.

Like Ms K Thanaletchimi, I hope that DSAs would become unnecessary one day. But we must be practical in our approach, given the large number of visitors and tourists along Orchard Road.

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.

Members have also called for restrictions on smoking in homes, including imposing penalties when smoke wafts out of a residential unit. Indeed, indiscriminate smoking can be distressing, and I empathise with all those who are affected.

Nevertheless, homes are private spaces. We need to be mindful that not everyone would support the view that the Government should intrude into one’s private space on the issue of smoking. Indeed, the Member Ms Rahayu Mahzam had alluded to that earlier. We have witnessed disputes in some private estates over the management committee’s right to prohibit smoking in one’s balcony – a private space. As Mr Louis Ng rightly pointed out, regulation must be balanced against privacy concerns.

Moreover, if we were to prohibit smoking in one’s own home, it would inevitably entail bringing to bear the necessary investigation and enforcement powers in our homes. We must not take this lightly. Such an intrusive regulatory approach to tackling neighbourly issues could ultimately be even more detrimental to community harmony and ownership.

Mr Louis Ng cited a recent US ban on smoking within public housing estates 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 adopting practices from abroad.

We have been proactively addressing second-hand smoke in our housing estates. Over the years, we have disallowed smoking at common areas, including at the lift lobbies, corridors and staircase landings. In response to Ms Rahayu Mahzam’s comment that there is a lack of understanding about the rules relating to smoking in sheltered walkways or drop-off points, especially during rain, we would like to clarify that the smoking prohibition applies regardless of the weather.

Ultimately, living in the community is about give and take. I urge all smokers to be considerate and to refrain from smoking in a way that would negatively affect others. Families and friends of the smokers as well as the public, in general, could help to reinforce the right social norms, through nudges and reminders, in order to help address this issue. In the spirit of good neighbourliness, we should try to understand one another’s concerns, communicate and resolve disputes amicably. If professional assistance is required, residents can approach the Community Mediation Centre.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Rahayu Mahzam highlighted the frustrations of non-smokers faced with inconsiderate smokers around their neighbourhood. They have asked about enforcement capacity, and how we plan to make enforcement more effective and efficient in light of the growing number of smoke-free places.

NEA has been engaging business owners about the Orchard Road NSZ and will calibrate its enforcement capacity according to the situation on the ground.

Enforcement is necessary, but not the silver bullet. Instead, our deeper aim is to foster social norms that promote health and well-being. We need the community to help us remind smokers where they should not be smoking. Smokers must also play their part and be mindful of those around them before lighting up.

Ms Thanaletchimi also asked how technology can be further leveraged to facilitate reporting of unlawful smoking and errant managers. Members of the public can notify NEA about smoking violations through the myENV and OneService mobile applications.

NEA is also exploring the use of thermal cameras to deter indiscriminate smoking, such as the one that Miss Cheryl Chan raised earlier, especially at corridors, lift lobbies and staircase landings, which other Members had also raised. These cameras are equipped with heat-detection capabilities that can detect smoking activity and can be operated remotely. When deployed, these cameras will be able to capture images of the smoking infringement and facilitate NEA’s investigations.

In response to Ms Rahayu Mahzam’s question whether the Community Volunteer (CV) programme has enhanced enforcement of the smoking prohibition, let me clarify that CVs are not deployed to supplement NEA’s enforcement officers.

The CVs’ primary role is to educate environmental offenders and promote environmental consciousness in the community. CVs can only ask for the particulars of uncooperative offenders and can give the information to NEA for investigation. CVs have been deployed in Orchard Road to raise awareness of the upcoming NSZ and help ease smokers into the regime when it comes into operation.

These efforts should also go some way in minimising smoking violations within the newly prohibited places, a concern raised by Ms Thanaletchimi.

We should adopt a whole-of-society approach towards encouraging gracious behaviour. This way, we can all enjoy clean air in the shared spaces around us, while building a stronger community. I agree with Ms Rahayu Mahzam and Ms Thanaletchimi that public education is a critical plank in our efforts to create a smoke-free environment, and we will explore ways to further enhance that.

Beyond encouraging smokers to be considerate, we also want to help them quit smoking. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) will expand its outreach and support network through its "I Quit" campaign. The campaign will raise awareness about the harms of smoking and encourage smokers to kick the habit for the sake of their families.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Joan Pereira suggested providing smoking rooms in premises, such as office buildings, public facilities and coffee shops. While smoking rooms may reduce exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, they cannot eliminate it completely. The smoke can still seep into other parts of the building where people do not smoke. Hence, we have restricted where and how smoking rooms can be set up.

Smoking rooms are only allowed in certain premises, such as office buildings and public entertainment outlets. However, the smoking room has to meet requirements, such as having separate ventilation and must not be used by any employee for work.

Mr Louis Ng and Miss Cheryl 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.

Ms K Thanaletchimi asked that time be given to managers who are required to set up smoking facilities. NEA will give sufficient notice to the manager of a place to set up any DSA. In fact, businesses and premises owners have worked with NEA to identify suitable locations for DSAs since 2017, ahead of the establishment of the Orchard Road NSZ.

In the case of smoking facilities located within food establishments, such as coffee shops, I would like to update Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan 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.

These amendments will also underscore our firm stance against abuse and threats made against our officers. Those found guilty of such acts will face fines of up to $2,000 for a first offence, and $5,000 for a second or subsequent offence, or a maximum of three months' imprisonment, or both. Similar obstruction provisions and penalties are also found in other laws, such as the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) administered by NEA. Under EPHA, any person who obstructs or hinders an authorised officer in the performance of his duties under the Act will be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000, and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both. We will regularly review the penalty for breaches to the Act, as suggested by Ms Thanaletchimi.

Last year, NEA issued 22,000 tickets for smoking, and there are calls from Members for NEA to be even more active and responsive in undertaking its enforcement duties. Taken together, these provisions will serve to enhance NEA's operational effectiveness and efficiency in discharging its responsibilities.

Miss Cheryl Chan asked whether MCSTs have to pass a by-law to disallow smoking within the compound of private condominiums. The answer is no. Smoking is already prohibited in the common areas of private estates, including the lift lobby, void decks and common function rooms. So, no by-law is required to prohibit smoking in these areas.

Regarding Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's proposal to restrict the sales volume of cigarettes and increase the tax on tobacco, I will convey her suggestions to my Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Finance colleagues administering the tobacco excise regime for them to consider.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill marks an important step towards our smoke-free vision. The Orchard Road NSZ will ensure a clean and healthy environment for shoppers and visitors. We have come a long way, and many segments of society support our push for a healthier living environment.

Smoking habits, however, are hard to break, and we must persevere in helping those who are trying their best to quit smoking. The Government will persist in our efforts to control access to tobacco products and discourage smoking through a combination of fiscal, regulatory and educational measures.

However, these efforts alone are insufficient without the help of the community. Families and friends should give smokers emotional and psychological support to kick the habit.

The Orchard Road NSZ represents our commitment to safeguarding the health of the community. I hope smokers will also support our efforts to maintain a conducive environment for all.

Sir, I have four supplementary questions. I would like to inform the Senior Minister of State that you can expand non-smoking areas but because of a lack enforcement, you will not see the end result that you wanted. Perhaps, we can consider putting up designated smoking points (DSPs), like what we have done in Nee Soon South, because I see that there are more and more smokers who go and use the DSPs.

My second question is on smoking in the presence of young children at home. Sometimes, I see parents smoking in front of children who are very young and crawling on the floor. Is there anything that we can do to help these young children because they are taking in second-hand smoke every day?

The third question is on thermal cameras. I would like to ask how many the Ministry has and when can they be deployed. I am very keen on that.

The last question I would like to ask is: how to enforce non-smoking at common areas in condominiums because your officers will not be able to go in?

For setting up of more DSPs, to the Member's comment about what if we have an NSZ and they do not comply, then it will not be effective, it is precisely because of this that we are only implementing the NSZ first in Orchard Road because we want to monitor the outcomes. For instance, we want to ensure that there is high compliance and that the DSAs are appropriately used. The locations of the DSAs will also be important – how they are designed and so on. So, that is the reason why we are saying that we will implement at the Orchard Road area first. We will look at it before we decide if we will replicate this.

Regarding setting up more DSPs, as I have noted earlier, if you are talking about housing estates, one of the issues to us is really that because of the density of housing estates, for instance, and the fact that housing estates are where the schools are, where the homes are, there is a challenge, in fact, with implementing DSAs in this area because you need to look at locations. It cannot be too conspicuous. You do not want to normalise smoking amongst children because DSAs are the areas where people congregate and so on.

And that is why our approach, as of now, is to increase the number of smoking prohibited areas even within our residential estates – sheltered walkways, playgrounds, common corridors, lift landings and lobbies. In fact, there are very few areas like Ms Rahayu Mahzam said, where they can smoke. One of them would be in their homes. But we take the Member's point. As I said, we will monitor the outcome of the Orchard Road NSZ before we decide if we will be expanding.

Regarding protection of young children of smokers, we need to strike a balance between forcing our values and norms on the parents, and the parents do have a duty and responsibility to protect their own young. What we all can do, as I have said, is through education, raising awareness, appealing to the smokers, to their families, their friends, their loved ones and the community to inculcate positive social norms, and to ask them to spare a thought for their loved ones – their children and others around them when they smoke, and to smoke in a considerate manner.

Regarding thermal cameras, we are not acquiring the thermal cameras ourselves. We have called a tender to get a third-party contractor to provide the service. So, we are actually buying service. But these thermal cameras have video analytic capabilities and what they will do is that they will detect any strong heat emitted from the object and then they will be able to capture images of the smoking offence. That will enable NEA to use these images to further investigate the alleged offence.

And we will contract the services such that we can deploy the cameras, the services where it is needed. Not yet. So, we have called for a tender and we are evaluating the tender.

What was the Member's last question? In fact, this is precisely why we have amended the Act. Section 4 actually explicitly allows NEA officers to enter, inspect, investigate in common areas which are smoking prohibited areas of private residential estates when they reasonably believe that there is an offence being committed or had been committed there, or that there is evidence that a smoking offence has been committed. So, for instance, if a member of the public calls up to say that there is a smoking violation, NEA officers can actually enter.

Sir, I want to take this opportunity to thank the NEA officers for carrying out those enforcement actions, often in very difficult circumstances.

I want to ask the Senior Minister of State who mentioned that we are expanding, that there will be more areas prohibited for smoking. Even as we expand these areas, I want to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there are plans to step up or expand the enforcement team, whether there is enough manpower on the ground to do it as, otherwise, there is no deterrent, and also whether there are investments into surveillance equipment to also step up the enforcement there.

Secondly, the Senior Minister of State talked about smokers who smoke at home. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there are, indeed, more smokers now smoking at home. And is that because of more areas that are prohibited from smoking and, therefore, many of them have moved back to their homes and smoke and, therefore, cause other externalities to their neighbours and so on.

With regard to enforcement, as I have said, for the Orchard Road NSZ, we will monitor the situation when the NSZ comes into force and then, we will calibrate our enforcement capacity. But actually, over the years, we have increased the number of enforcement officers, because of the expansion in the smoking prohibited places. Having said that, realistically, there is a limit as to the number of enforcement officers or manpower we can expand, especially faced with our manpower constraints due to an ageing population.

The Member is right to say that we would also have to depend on technology. Earlier, I did mention that we are now looking – in fact, we had called for a tender – to use thermal cameras with regard to smoking offences or smoking violations, say, at lift lobbies, staircase landings and so on, to help us with our enforcement.

At the end of the day, as I have said many times in my speech, we need the community to come together to help us with this. So, this amendment to this Act will also explicitly require the managers to be accountable, to be responsible for their premises, to ask the smoking offender to stop smoking or to leave their premises. We cannot be expected to be at every of the 32,000 smoking prohibited places, or to respond to every feedback immediately. And we need the community to help us, including getting the smokers to smoke more considerately and stop smoking if they can.

What is the second question?

Okay. Our smoking rate has come down. Earlier in my opening speech, I said that last year, it was 12%. It has come down from 23% long time ago to about 14% and then 12%. So, in total, the smoking rate has gone down. And by inference, that would likely mean that there ought not to be more people smoking at home.

Having said that, in every case of smoke wafting into a neighbour's house, it is distressful to the person. People may also be a lot more sensitive about second-hand smoke. But actually, according to our records, the numbers have not increased. In fact, we have actually seen some decrease in the number of feedback we have received about smoke wafting into a neighbour's house.

Thank you, Sir. I have two supplementary questions. I agree that the community plays a great role in this. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there is any plan to step up education in schools. Are there plans to work with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to step up education in schools?

And the second question is how many CVs are there currently and whether there is any target or any plan to train more CVs, because I do not see that this is being actively promoted?

Regarding the first question on education, we will continue to work with HPB and MOE on ways to enhance our education outreach to the young, as well as to the population in general.

Regarding the CVs, we currently have about 400 CVs who are trained. We have no target for CVs, but we need to ensure that we have suitable people who join us as CVs. So, they will be trained.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*

*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan.]*

*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*