Investigation into Aluminium Composite Claddings on Buildings with Potential Fire Risk

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Home Affairs how did the two brands of aluminium composite panel used as external cladding that were recently found to pose potential fire risk come to possess Class "0" certificates and how did the SCDF discover that they could pose fire risks.

Thank you. Sir, after we issued our statement, we advised our industry partners to approach the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) if they had reason to suspect that the cladding used for their building projects were in any way not compliant with Fire Code requirements. Industry partners meaning building owners, qualified persons (QPs) and so on.

A building owner proactively submitted samples of two models of composite panel that were used in its building project for tests. They submitted it for tests – Bolliya and Bolli-Core FR. Those two models had been issued Certificates of Conformity (CoCs) by local certification bodies, which had certified them to be compliant with Fire Code requirements for use as cladding. The tests, however, found the samples to be non-compliant. The building owner then informed the SCDF about the matter.

SCDF had made a further announcement on 8 December 2017. It has identified six other buildings that could have used these two models of composite panel, and investigations on how this came about are still on-going.

I thank the Minister. A few supplementary questions. I would like to ask the Minister: whether the integrity of the certification system has been compromised; when the review of the system to tighten the processes would be completed; and what remedial steps would be taken in the meantime to ensure public safety? And this is referring to the certification system.

Another set of questions is: whether SCDF will be extending the retesting to all brands of cladding? And if so, when will this be completed?

Whether SCDF will be extending the retesting to all brands of cladding? And if so, when will this be completed?

On whether the integrity of certification systems been compromised, I think that will be too quick a conclusion. Let me explain why.

I said investigations are ongoing. For example, Alubond. Again, I need to be careful about what I say because the matter is under, not just SCDF investigations, but also Police investigations. SCDF has issued a public statement as to how it believes non-compliant panels came to be put up on the structures. If we go back to the public statement by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), there was one type of cladding which complied with the certification requirements, another that could not be used on the façade. SCDF believes they had been mixed up in the warehouse.

So, it is not a question of integrity of the testing system. But if you had asked me to speculate in August as to how this came about, I think it would have been difficult for me to have speculated that it is because there was a mixture in the warehouse. One has got to be careful about jumping to conclusions, at this point, as to whether the entire certification system has been compromised. The certification system relies on identifying international institutions of repute, which are recognised worldwide, and also institutions in Singapore, which can either rely on those certificates and make sure that the testing has been done, or test themselves.

At this stage, we have no evidence, no reason to suspect that any of them has been suborned. But I think we will obviously be investigating all possibilities, including whether there could be manufacturing defects, and differences between samples and actual material.

I have answered the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament previously, sampling is the method worldwide. The way of testing is to burn the material. And by definition, if you want to do a 100% testing, there will be no material left. So, you have to do sample testing.

As to how this will be reviewed in the context of public safety – in all the things that we do, I think that is front and centre. Everything else has got to work around public safety, which is why, for example, let us take this issue of cladding. In contrast with what happened at Grenfell Tower, Cladding is one aspect. How does it compromise public safety depends on a variety of factors.

For example, is the entire building clad with this material? If we say 5% of the building façade is clad with this material, obviously, the risk is very different from 100% cladding. Some of the buildings identified have less than 5%, less than 8%. So, that is one factor – how much of the building has been clad with such a cladding?

Second, what sort of fire sprinkler system is there? The Member would know the contrast with Grenfell Tower again. In Singapore, the requirements for, for example, the fire escape routes are very stringent and they have to be fire protected as well. What is the height of the building? How much of the building is occupied?

These are composite factors and then there are other aspects of safety like how much training do the staff have in commercial buildings. What sort of fire drills were done? So, SCDF, in respect of these buildings, has gone down to look at all these aspects together and worked with the management, while they are taking down the cladding. Because even for buildings with 5% or 8% of cladding, we require them to take down, and at the same time, we are making sure that these other, what I call the human safety factors, are being practised.

Fire safety is absolutely important, which is why SCDF makes that assessment first, while the testing is going on, because testing takes some time. But they make an assessment as to whether the building is safe or not safe and announce it publicly.

Where there is no unrestricted public access to the buildings, SCDF requires the building owners to inform all their tenants of the nature of the cladding and the issues surrounding it, so that the tenants can make a considered assessment. Even though we say it is safe, we believe it is safe, but we think the tenants ought to know. Where there is unrestricted public access, we think that should be made public and it is up on the SCDF's website.

That is the approach that is taken, and regardless of whether it is 5%, 8%, 10% or 50% cladding, we require them to take it down. For example, on Alubond, I think 17 have taken down, 18 are in the process of taking down. In respect of Bolliya and Bolli-Core, I think three have taken down. The other four are in the process of taking down. Another building, a church, has been identified more recently. We are in the process of talking to them. So, all of them are in the process of being taken down.

In respect of other brands of cladding, what is doable has been done, in the sense that we have contacted industry partners, we have required QPs to give us returns to explain and relook at their buildings, make second round of checks. We have identified these brands as being problematic, and they better check, which is how it, for example, Bolliya and Bolli-Core came up. We have also asked for the annual audits to be expedited and this should cover all the others.