Debated in Parliament on 7 Jul 2014.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Radiation Protection Act was first enacted in 1973 to control the import, export, sale, transport, possession and use of radioactive material and irradiating apparatus. The Act was repealed and re-enacted in 1991 to include, among other amendments, the control of non-ionising radiation.
In 2007, the Act was again repealed and re-enacted to transfer the roles and functions of the Centre for Radiation Protection (CRP), as the administrator of the Act, from the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) to the National Environment Agency (NEA). The 2007 Act was also enacted to prepare for Singapore's ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Act has served us well over the years and is crucial to ensure that radioactive material and irradiating apparatus are stringently regulated and managed. Singaporeans today go about our daily lives without having to worry about the risk of being exposed to unnecessary radiation from the use of radioactive material and irradiating apparatus. This would not have been possible without the Act.
However, we must not take the safe and clean environment we enjoy in Singapore today for granted. Many countries are currently using nuclear energy, or are actively exploring nuclear as a source of energy. Nonetheless, given the particular challenges that it poses, the decision to use nuclear energy should never be taken lightly and all countries have to put much thought and effort into their planning. As any such nuclear incident could have far-reaching transboundary effects, it is important for Singapore to work closely with the regional and the international community to protect our population and environment from radiological exposure.
At the same time, with the increased use of nuclear energy, it also means that the transport of nuclear material across boundaries is occurring more frequently. Hence, it is pertinent that greater attention be given to protecting our population from exposure. As such, there is a need to ensure that the nuclear material is adequately protected during transport. The consequences of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands are potentially disastrous and it is important that there is a global concerted and integrated effort to protect
Page: 84
all nuclear material.
Singapore has committed to acceding to the IAEA's Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) and its 2005 Amendment. At the third Nuclear Security Summit held in The Hague in March this year, Prime Minister Lee announced that Singapore would shortly accede to the Convention as part of our commitment to upholding nuclear security as a responsible member of the international community.
We have, therefore, tabled a Bill to amend our Radiation Protection Act to allow Singapore to fulfil the obligations under the CPPNM and its 2005 Amendment, as well as to enhance domestic regulations to protect Singapore from the risk of exposure. This will send a signal that Singapore places a strong emphasis on nuclear safety and security and is willing to fulfil its role as a responsible global citizen.
Mdm Speaker, I shall now highlight the main amendments and new provisions proposed in this Bill.
Under the CPPNM, Parties are obliged to establish various offences relating to nuclear material to ensure adequate protection of nuclear material in international transport, as well as to share information and coordinate recovery and response operations in the event of a threat posed to a consignment of nuclear material. The 2005 Amendment further strengthens the provisions of the Convention to include the protection of nuclear facilities and material in peaceful domestic use, storage as well as transport. While the Convention is already in force, the 2005 Amendment has yet to enter into force. It will enter into force after it has been ratified by two-thirds of the State Parties to the Convention.
The CPPNM and its 2005 Amendment also require Parties to criminalise specific acts relating to nuclear material and nuclear facilities. Therefore, we have proposed amendments to the Radiation Protection Act to criminalise these acts. We have also proposed a second set of amendments to criminalise additional acts as required by the 2005 Amendment. This second set of amendments will be brought into force when the 2005 Amendment enters into force.
These amendments to the Act will provide Singapore with comprehensive protection against criminal acts involving nuclear material. Let me outline some details:
Clauses 5 and 6 of the Amendment Bill seek to further strengthen the control of various dealings with radioactive material and irradiating apparatuses under sections 5 and 6 of the Act, such as the import, export or sale of them, by increasing the maximum imprisonment terms from two to five years for those who do such acts without a licence or licensees who
Page: 85
act contrary to the terms of the licence.
Clause 9(1) provides for the criminalisation of various acts done in relation to nuclear material. The new section 26B criminalises various acts done in relation to nuclear material which cause or are likely to cause death, serious injury or substantial property damage. Given the dangerous nature of nuclear material, the new section 26C enhances the imprisonment terms for various property offences. The new section 26D makes it an offence to threaten to use nuclear material to cause death, serious injury or substantial property damage, or to threaten to commit theft or robbery of nuclear material, in order to compel a person, organisation or government to do or abstain from doing an act. The new section 26E requires a person with information that can help prevent a nuclear offence or in arresting or prosecuting the perpetrator of such an offence to disclose it to the Police. The new section 26F confers extraterritorial jurisdiction for various nuclear offences. This helps to ensure that perpetrators do not escape punishment, regardless of who they are or where the offence was committed, which is a key objective of the CPPNM.
Clause 9(2) provides for the amendments needed to implement the 2005 Amendment to the Convention. The new section 26DA criminalises various acts done in relation to nuclear material and which substantially harms the environment. The new section 26DB criminalises various acts done against nuclear facilities. The new section 26DC criminalises the making of threats to commit any of these acts. The new section 26DD gives Singapore jurisdiction to deal with the unlawful export or import of nuclear material occurring in another country.
We are most concerned about acts of sabotage directed against nuclear facilities with the intention to cause death or harm. The most egregious acts must be deterred with the most severe of penalties. Therefore, clause 9(2) proposes that the mandatory death penalty be levied for acts done against a nuclear facility which are committed with the intention to cause death and death is caused. For an act against a nuclear facility which causes death and is committed with the intention to cause serious injury, coupled with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, the proposed punishment is the discretionary death penalty. Our view is that these punishments send an appropriately strong signal that the Government regards these as very grave offences. The provisions are tightly scoped and I want to assure the House that they do not extend the death penalty beyond Singapore's existing legislation.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to reiterate the importance of international cooperation.
Further to this, clause 9 inserts provisions to provide for mutual legal assistance and extradition in relation to nuclear offences. To facilitate mutual legal assistance between State Parties to the CPPNM, the new section 26G provides that a foreign nuclear offence is deemed not to be a political offence. This is because the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A) prohibits assistance if the Attorney-General determines that the
Page: 86
offence is of a political character. The new section 26H enables extradition between Singapore and a State Party to the Convention or its 2005 Amendment of persons accused of nuclear offences. Both sections 26G and 26H are common provisions found in many of our anti-terrorism laws.
Mdm Speaker, another key obligation of the CPPNM and its 2005 Amendment is for State Parties to share information concerning any unauthorised acts done to nuclear material, any credible threat, or in order to protect threatened nuclear material, among others. To allow Singapore to do so, clauses 7 and 8 will amend sections 16 and 17 of the Radiation Protection Act. Amendments to section 16 will enable the Director-General of Environmental Protection to require licence holders to provide him with the requisite information or documents if required to be shared under the CPPNM or its 2005 Amendment. Amendments to section 17 will enable information obtained pursuant to the Act to be disclosed without breach of the duty of secrecy if such disclosure is for the purpose of the CPPNM or its 2005 Amendment.
Mdm Speaker, I will now deal with various other miscellaneous amendments to the Act. Clause 10 inserts a new section 40A to enable enforcement costs to be recovered from a person convicted of certain offences under the Radiation Protection Act.
Clause 12 amends the regulation-making power of the NEA. Regulations may be made for the purposes of implementing the CPPNM and its 2005 Amendment and to enable the screening and decontamination of persons who may be exposed to radiation, for instance, in-bound passengers from places which had nuclear accidents. This is to deal with the legislative gap identified when we were responding to the Fukushima nuclear incident.
Amendments are also made to strengthen existing control measures under the Act.
We also propose by clause 4 to extend the application of certain provisions of the Radiation Protection Act on the Government. This is on account of the fact that some departments of the Government operate or use radioactive material and irradiating apparatuses when carrying out official duties and functions. The extension of these provisions to cover the Government, especially the licensing regime, will allow NEA to monitor and track the use and location of radioactive material and irradiating equipment, and to monitor the radiation exposure level of public officers and ensure that they are adequately protected.
Mdm Speaker, it is of paramount importance that we do not take our clean and safe environment for granted. Keeping Singapore safe from the risk of radiation requires stringent and continuous efforts and this Amendment Bill is a key part of such an effort. This
Page: 87
Amendment Bill will ensure that we have the necessary measures to protect Singapore from radioactive material and irradiating apparatuses in the light of the new challenges that we face. With these, we will be better able to secure a safe environment for our people and for subsequent generations. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
*Question proposed. (proc text)]
Madam, Singapore does not currently have nuclear power capabilities. But we have an interest in nuclear security and that is why we are debating this Bill. It is our duty as a responsible member of the international community of nations.
We may also become victims to any fallout from a nuclear activity or an attack near us. Our neighbours, Malaysia and the Philippines, have indicated their intent to pursue nuclear power plants. Indonesia is still looking for an appropriate site, when previous sites met with public opposition. The Malaysian government has plans for two nuclear reactors to be built in the 2020s. Thus, our interests and preparation are crucial.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
The post-Fukushima era is a new era for all of us. It stresses on safety and energy governance. It is also about economic and strategic interests and, in Southeast Asia, these still, primarily, are the drivers of civil nuclear energy.
Our checkpoints officers, Sir, need to be vigilant and have a high index of suspicion. Can I enquire how prepared are they and how much training and knowledge do they possess in this area? Do they know about protection and donning protective garments or have exercised these scenarios? How about nuclear-powered military vessels that may dock in our ports and waters? Do we have certain precautionary measures for these cases? These days, it is also very mobile when we have mobile devices and we must be aware that things like "dirty bombs" are often used by people and persons linked to terrorism.
Other sources of nuclear materials in Singapore could be related to the medical industry and also in certain Government departments as well as other industrial devices but these institutions would be guarded by rules and regulations and have certain protocol for handling such equipment and materials.
Page: 88
Vulnerabilities are, indeed, everywhere today and that is why we need this Bill. The strongest stance and enforcement as well as enhancements of this Bill will be to our advantage. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her support of the Bill. I would just like to respond briefly to the points that she has raised.
First of all, many countries, especially those in our region, are currently either using nuclear energy or actively exploring using nuclear energy as a source of power. As such, it is crucial that we have the necessary measures to protect Singapore in case there is an accident, for instance, an accident in a nuclear power plant somewhere near Singapore, or an act of terror involving "dirty bombs". It is a valid question that she has posed on whether we are prepared for such incidents and whether our response teams are adequately trained to carry out the necessary protection measures.
The second point was whether these precautionary measures are in place to guard against mishaps involving nuclear-powered military vessels when these vessels are in our waters or when they call at our ports.
To address these issues, let me first reassure the Member that the import and export of radioactive and nuclear material, which are security sensitive, are already controlled under the current Radiation Protection Act and its Regulations. These are administered by NEA to ensure the safe use and handling of all such materials. In addition, the export of specific radioactive and nuclear material, as part of our support for global efforts to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, is controlled under the Strategic Goods (Control) Act and its Regulations and are administered by Singapore Customs.
Operationally, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority deploys radiation monitoring portals at our major cargo entry points to inspect vehicles and containers for the presence of radioactive material, even if they have not been declared to be such. The officers manning the screening equipment are trained in the use of the equipment and standard procedures are in place to deal with instances when such materials are detected, with particular emphasis on protecting the officers concerned and the public in general.
Multi-agency plans are in place to respond to incidents when radioactive materials are released or which may put the public's safety and security at risk. These include the scenarios which Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef has raised.
Page: 89
I hope I have addressed her valid concerns but let me conclude again, Mr Deputy Speaker, by saying that we take the protection of human health and the environment from the exposure of radiation very seriously and that is why we are amending the Radiation Protection Act today to include more stringent measures and penalties. In this regard, I would like to thank the Member for her support and this House for giving me the opportunity to clarify what this Bill means for the safety and well-being of all Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Mrs Lina Chiam.
I would like to thank the Minister for his clarifications. I would like to ask a further clarification from the Minister. How does NEA ensure food imported from Japan is free from radiation contamination since the Fukushima explosion a few years ago?
I thank the Member for her question. I think we have to take a very, I would say, almost hyper-cautious approach to this. So, in the first instance, when we were aware that such an incident had occurred and we know where exactly it is, the first thing is to ascertain the facts: the severity of the accident, the release of radioactive material, whether it has entered the food chain at the local point.
The Member will recollect that, at the first incidence, we put a moratorium on the import of food from the affected zone. With time, depending on the results of on-going studies, those restrictions can either be amended to be even stricter or less so according to risk.
I want to give this House the assurance that AVA, which regulates food import – it is not under my Ministry but the MND – takes a very cautious stance. Because we have to make sure that our people are protected from such incidents elsewhere.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
Does the Member want to raise a Point of Order?
Yes, Sir. I think, in order that this Bill is not to be challenged on the basis that it is not constitutionally passed, can I
Page: 90
just clarify that we do have a quorum? Thank you.
Clerk of Parliament, please take a count.
Thereupon, a count was made.
We need one more for a quorum. Clerk of Parliament, please sound the Division Bell.
Members summoned into the Chamber as if for a Division.
We now have a quorum.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Page: 91
PAPERCUTS