Civil Defence Shelter and Fire Safety (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and the Minister for Home Affairs, I seek to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

As part of our efforts to ensure the Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) regulatory regimes remain relevant and up to date, we have reviewed the Civil Defence Shelter Act and the Fire Safety Act to tighten SCDF's regulatory oversight over regulated shelter products and to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses involved in petroleum and flammable material (P&FM) activities.

This Bill covers the following themes. One, to strengthen SCDF's oversight over regulated shelter products and empower SCDF to take appropriate actions against parties in the supply chain for non-compliance; two, to introduce a class licensing regime for the regulation of P&FM activities; three, to allow SCDF to appoint SEOs to conduct compliance checks for the transport of P&FM; and four, to clarify the responsibilities of premise owners and occupiers in relation to fire safety measures.

We also have other miscellaneous amendments. Allow me to first explain the key amendments in turn.

Today, SCDF sets the specifications and standards for shelter products, such as household and storey shelter doors. These standards ensure that occupants are adequately protected from blast effects during a bombardment. One important way we ensure only compliant products are installed in our buildings is by mandating that suppliers of shelter products must obtain a Certificate of Conformity (COC) that attests these products meet SCDF specifications and standards before they can be used in Singapore. These COCs are issued by private certification bodies recognised by the Singapore Accreditation Council (SAC). As part of this process, these private certification bodies affirm that SCDF's specifications and standards have been met through tests by accredited laboratories.

At present, if a certification body is found to be non-compliant, SCDF can work with SAC to suspend or withdraw its accreditation. We have also placed requirements on home owners under section 4 of the Civil Defence Shelter Act to maintain their shelters in accordance with SCDF's regulations. However, SCDF has no enforcement powers against other parties in the supply chain. These include test laboratories, suppliers and installers involved in certifying, supplying or installing non-compliant products.

The amendments will close this gap and give SCDF enforcement powers against errant laboratories, suppliers and installers of non-compliant shelter products.

I should emphasise that to date, SCDF has not observed any non-compliance regarding shelter products. However, we have seen cases of non-compliance involving fire safety products, such as fire-rated doors, which are similarly regulated.

In December 2018, a COC holder for fire-rated doors had utilised its certification status and provided a non-certified company with 50 labels to be pasted on non-compliant doors that were then installed in various buildings. Therefore, the proposed amendments are anticipatory, to allow SCDF to deal with cases involving non-compliant shelter products, to take action against errant parties in the supply chain and to help safeguard public safety.

Let me elaborate.

Clause 3 introduces a new Part 2A in the Civil Defence Shelter Act to strengthen controls over regulated shelter products. This has been adapted from Part 5 of the Fire Safety Act, which has proven effective in regulating fire safety products and ensure these new controls are grounded in a tested and familiar framework. Let me highlight four key aspects that the new Part 2A introduces.

First, there are new offences covering parties across the shelter products supply chain who may compromise public safety. These offences cover: one, accredited laboratories that issue false test reports; two, persons who provide false information to accredited certification bodies to obtain COC; three, certification bodies that certify non-compliant shelter products; four, suppliers who pass off non-compliant products as certified ones; and five, installers who fit non-compliant products or install them in a way that undermines the shelter's ability to function safely. These offences apply not just to deliberate wrongdoing, but also to cases where parties were reckless or negligent in carrying out their responsibilities.

Second, SCDF will be able to instruct a relevant party, whether the certification body, supplier, or COC holder to send a shelter product for testing at an accredited laboratory, when there are grounds to believe the product may be non-compliant. This will allow SCDF to determine whether the product is compliant.

Third, if a product is found to be non-compliant, SCDF may direct the relevant parties in the supply chain to address the problem. For example, SCDF may direct the relevant parties who are distributing the product to recall the product, stop supplying it, or remove the product from the shelters where they had been installed. SCDF may also direct the relevant parties to dispose the recalled non-compliant product or rectify contraventions of the specifications issued under the Civil Defence Shelter Act for products that have been installed. SCDF may also direct the certification body to cancel the COC for a particular product, or temporarily stop issuing new COCs to a person whom SCDF has reason to believe has supplied non-compliant shelter products. This allows SCDF to take swift action to protect innocent persons from products which are non-compliant and which put people in danger because they do not meet the required safety standards.

Fourth, if a party refuses or fails to comply with SCDF's direction, SCDF may enter the premises, such as a supplier's warehouse, to carry out the direction such as to cease the supply of non-compliant shelter products. In most cases, SCDF will give the owner or occupier at least 24 hours' notice or obtain a warrant from a Magistrate before entering. However, if SCDF has reasonable grounds to believe that a non-compliant shelter product poses an imminent danger affecting public safety, SCDF may enter the premises without notice or a warrant. This exceptional power may be exercised only with the expressed authorisation of the Commissioner of SCDF. When seeking entry, the authorised officer must produce their SCDF-issued identification card and a document showing the Commissioner's authorisation. These two documents together serve as a safeguard that the power to enter the premises is exercised only by duly authorised officers.

Today, the number of entities involved in supply of shelter products is relatively small, for example there are only five approved shelter door suppliers. As we have found these suppliers to generally be compliant, we do not expect SCDF to need to exercise these new powers on a regular basis. However, these powers are important to ensure that SCDF can act promptly when needed, so that shelters provide the required protection.

Finally, we will make two further changes to align the Civil Defence Shelter Act with the Fire Safety Act. We will introduce an appeal mechanism to the Minister for Home Affairs for parties aggrieved by SCDF's directions under the new Part 2A in relation to regulated shelter products. We will also raise the maximum composition sum from $500 to $5,000.

In 2024, we have consulted relevant industry stakeholders on the proposed amendments and no concerns were raised. SCDF will also issue circulars and brief relevant stakeholders ahead of operationalising these amendments.

Shelters continue to remain a critical component of civil protection in times of national emergency. These amendments aim to ensure that the shelters are able to protect our people when the need arises.

I will now move on to amendments to the Fire Safety Act.

Today, SCDF issues more than 6,500 individual licences annually for the storage, transport and conveyance of P&FM in Singapore. However, not all P&FM activities carry the same fire safety risks. That is why SCDF will introduce a class licensing regime for lower-risk P&FM activities. With a class license, eligible premises will no longer have to apply annually for an individual licence to store P&FM after making a one-time submission to notify SCDF of their storage premises. This will reduce regulatory burden on businesses whilst maintaining fire safety standards. Clause 21 provides for a class licensing regime that will apply in lieu of individual licences for such activities. The categories of premises and their corresponding licensing conditions will be prescribed by the Minister in subsidiary legislation.

SCDF will implement the class licensing regime for the storage of P&FM. It will cover four categories of lower-risk premises: one, petrol stations; two, construction sites; three, Category C and D laboratories as specified in the Singapore Standards, which are laboratories assessed to be of low and minimal fire hazard risk respectively; and four, buildings which store diesel solely to fuel their emergency generators.

These four categories account for approximately 15% of all P&FM storage licensees. They were identified in view of their lower inherent risk characteristics such as controlled storage and dispensing settings, and comparatively lower risk of fire spread. There were no reported fires originating from these premises between 2020 and 2025.

All other P&FM storage facilities, such as refineries and petrochemical facilities, will continue to require individual licences. The transport and conveyance of P&FM will also remain licenced activities.

There is one other P&FM activity – dispensing – that is also currently limited to individually licensed storage premises. Clause 20 allows class licensed premises such as petrol stations to dispense P&FM as part of their business operations, subject to the conditions of the class licence.

While the P&FM class licensing regime will reduce regulatory burden on businesses, SCDF will continue to maintain strict oversight of these activities. Businesses must still comply with existing fire safety requirements and periodic inspections will be done to verify this.

Clause 30 makes it an offence for any licence applicant or class licensee to knowingly provide false or misleading information to SCDF, or to be reckless or negligent as to whether the information they provide to SCDF is false or misleading. SCDF will not hesitate to take stern enforcement action against such behaviour by licence applicants and class licensees.

SCDF has engaged companies in the P&FM sector, and they have welcomed the class licensing regime, which will reduce regulatory compliance burden on businesses when implemented. SCDF will engage the P&FM licensees ahead of the implementation of the class licensing regime.

Next, I will address the proposal to appoint Supplementary Enforcement Officers (SEOs) to conduct compliance checks for transport-related P&FM activities. This expands the roles of SEOs by outsourcing more straightforward functions and allows SCDF to focus its limited manpower resources on higher risk areas.

We amended the Fire Safety Act in 2019 to allow SEOs to be appointed to conduct fire safety inspections for buildings and to exercise certain enforcement powers during such inspections, such as the issuance of Fire Hazard Abatement Notices for simple and straightforward cases. Since then, SEOs have proven themselves up to the task. They have strengthened our enforcement presence on the ground, while enabling SCDF officers to dedicate attention to more complex cases.

To grant SEOs powers to conduct checks on vehicles transporting P&FM, we need to specify in greater detail SCDF's powers pertaining to transport of P&FM so that it is clear what powers SEOs will be exercising. We have done so in clause 24. Apart from clarifying existing powers such as stopping and inspecting vehicles transporting P&FM, and taking samples of the P&FM for testing, clause 24 will also empower SCDF to direct a vehicle to be driven along approved routes to a suitable location for the safe disposal of the transported P&FM.

Meanwhile, clause 9 will allow SCDF to appoint SEOs to exercise relevant powers under clause 24. The end result is that SEOs will be able to conduct checks of vehicles transporting P&FM that are, for example, entering Singapore or restricted areas such as the Central Business District. If non-compliance is detected, the case will be handed over to SCDF officers, who will conduct further investigations and take the appropriate enforcement action against errant parties.

I want to assure Members that SCDF will continue to ensure that the SEOs are suitably trained prior to their deployment. In addition, SCDF will continue to implement safeguards that currently apply to existing SEOs, such as requiring the SEOs to wear body-worn cameras, wear SCDF-approved attire and display SCDF-issued authority cards when carrying out their duties. This will ensure that the SEOs are held to high standards of professionalism and minimise the risk of any abuse of authority by these officers.

To ensure that SCDF can effectively respond to fire incidents, it is critical that fire safety measures such as rising mains, fire hydrants and fire engine access roads are kept operational and unobstructed, so they do not hamper SCDF's firefighting operations. This is regardless of whether the fire safety measures are located inside or outside a building.

However, SCDF does encounter such issues from time to time. For example, we have come across unauthorised structures such as temporary tentages which block fire engine access roads or accessways to a building. These are serious fire hazards, and we should hold the relevant persons accountable under the Fire Safety Act.

Currently, the Fire Safety Act defines fire hazards broadly to cover situations which would materially hamper SCDF's firefighting efforts. However, while it is currently clear who is responsible for hazards within a building, it is less clear when it comes to hazards outside of a building.

Clause 6 therefore makes clear that a fire hazard includes the obstruction of fire safety measures outside of a building such as fire engine access roads and accessways. For comprehensiveness, it also makes clear that hose reels and rising mains, when installed on the facades of buildings, are external fire safety measures. Clauses 10, 11 and 12 make it clear that obstructing, interfering with, or otherwise failing to keep in proper working order such fire safety measures are serious offences for building owners and occupiers, as well as any person who causes or contributes to such an outcome. Building owners or occupiers who do not take reasonable steps to remove or prevent fire hazards will also be held liable.

These changes will collectively strengthen SCDF's ability to ensure the upkeep, non-obstruction and maintenance of all fire safety measures.

I will now move on to other miscellaneous amendments to the Fire Safety Act.

In line with the whole-of-Government pro-enterprise efforts to reduce regulatory burden on businesses, clause 26 increases the maximum duration of any licence or permit issued under Part 6 of the Fire Safety Act from three years to five years. Notwithstanding this, licensees and permit holders must remain fully responsible for ensuring their P&FM premises, vehicles and activities continue to comply fully with licensing conditions at all times.

I want to assure Members that SCDF will still subject licensees to verification checks and will not hesitate to take errant licensees to task.

Clauses 7 and 13 empower the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint a member of the Registered Inspectors Inquiry Panel and the Fire Safety Engineers Inquiry Panel respectively for a period as determined by the Minister, instead of a fixed term of two years.

Clause 33 of the Bill repeals the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act 2019 (or CWPAA). Currently, chemicals listed under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) are regulated by Singapore Customs under the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 2000. I will refer to these chemicals as "scheduled chemicals". All entities involved in various activities related to scheduled chemicals, including acquiring, producing, or stockpiling, are to apply to Singapore Customs for a licence.

In 2019, the CWPAA was passed to strengthen our regulatory control over the transportation of scheduled chemicals within Singapore. Specifically, it would have required licensed entities which wanted to transport scheduled chemicals above the prescribed amount within Singapore to seek approval from Singapore Customs. However, before operationalising the CWPAA, the Government reviewed the existing transport controls and assessed that it would be more resource-effective to align the transport controls for scheduled chemicals and other chemicals within Singapore. As the National Environment Agency (NEA) and SCDF were already regulating the transportation of hazardous substances and P&FM respectively, it made sense to expand both agencies' mandates to also cover scheduled chemicals. Indeed, the transport controls in the CWPAA had themselves taken reference from NEA and SCDF's practices under the respective regulatory regimes.

We effected regulating of transport of scheduled chemicals under NEA and SCDF in 2023 via amendments to legislation and subsidiary legislation under the Environmental Protection and Management Act, and the Fire Safety Act. To date, we have not received any adverse feedback for this initiative.

With these changes, persons transporting scheduled chemicals have benefited from the streamlined arrangement as they are only required to either apply to NEA or SCDF, depending on the type of chemical being transported. There is no need to separately apply to Singapore Customs for transport approval. With processes working well since 2023, we are hereby repealing the CWPAA.

For the avoidance of doubt, the repeal affects only the CWPAA. The Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act continues to be in force, and Singapore remains fully compliant with our international obligations under the CWC.

Let me now say a few words about the broader state of fire safety in Singapore. This Bill focuses on specific aspects of our wide-ranging fire safety regime – from how we regulate specific fire safety measures, to how we can simplify and extend various licences for businesses. These are meaningful improvements.

However, Members of this House may wonder why we are pursuing amendments in areas where there are generally no pressing safety concerns. At the same time, there have been a series of news reports this year about various fire incidents in our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, commercial shops and industrial buildings. This is borne out in data too – the SCDF responded to more than 2,000 fire calls in 2025, which is a 10% increase compared to 2021. Some may ask: why are we not implementing more aggressive regulations to deal with these other aspects of fire safety?

We take each and every incident seriously, because behind each fire are families and business owners who have to struggle to overcome adversity and pain, when lives and property are irrevocably lost.

I have spoken on many occasions in this House on our strategies to improve fire safety in our HDB flats, our commercial shops and industrial buildings – whether through increasing public education, strengthening enforcement to ensure compliance with our regulations, or tightening our regulations on dangerous items such as modified batteries in active mobility devices.

Some of our amendments today will add to this, such as our amendments to clarify the roles and responsibilities for fire safety measures outside of a building. But I would like to reassure the House that there is much ongoing work beyond this Bill to improve fire safety in our heartlands, much of it occurring behind the scenes as we go about our everyday lives.

And the good thing is that we remain in a position of strength. Our overall fire fatality rate remains amongst the lowest internationally, according to a report by the International Association of Fire and Rescue Services. The incidence of residential fires has also decreased slightly, from 0.067% in 2021 to 0.065% in 2025, even as our housing stock has actually increased over the same period.

So, let me assure Members that even though this Bill does not revisit our broader strategies to improve fire safety in our HDB flats, commercial shops and industrial buildings, these areas remain a key priority for the SCDF.

As for the amendments before the House today, they will strengthen our civil defence shelter and fire safety regulatory regimes respectively. They will reduce regulatory burden on lower-risk activities, while ensuring that SCDF can undertake enforcement action where needed. They reflect our commitment to act early, strengthen our frameworks, and keeping our fire safety regime effective. And they underscore a critical point: if we work together – building owners, occupiers, businesses and suppliers – we can continue to safeguard Singapore's fire safety and civil defence preparedness efforts and ensuring a safe and secure Singapore. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.

Question proposed.

Ms Lee Hui Ying.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I welcome the Government's intent to streamline licensing processes. This is a move that will be well-received by the business community as we simplify regulatory processes while upholding public safety standards.

When it comes to fire safety, one fire is one too many. This Bill gives us an opportunity to strengthen our systems before an incident happens. The objective is not merely to respond better after a fire, but to prevent more fires from happening in the first place.

To this, I have three clarifications: first, on the class licensing regime; second, on leveraging artificial intelligence to enhance SCDF's enforcement and audit capacity; and third, on addressing the risks of ageing infrastructure.

First, on class licensing. I support the overall approach taken by the Ministry. It is a sensible way to reduce compliance costs, provided that the obligations under the class licence are clear and the consequences of non-compliance are credible.

Under this approach, greater trust and greater responsibility is placed on individual companies. Could the Ministry provide greater clarity then, on the criteria that companies must meet before they can operate under a class licence? How will SCDF assess the company's safety systems, past compliance record, competence of its responsible officers and ability to manage P&FM safely?

Can the Senior Minister of State also share greater details on the anticipated scope and frequency of post-licensing audits? It is vital that we accord trust to businesses in a manner that is proportional to their assessed credibility. Will the audit regime be purely periodic, or will it also respond dynamically to risk indicators such as previous breaches, changes in operations, incident reports, or significant turnover of safety personnel?

It is key as well that trust is accorded to businesses in a manner proportionate to their assessed credibility. A company with a strong compliance record should not face the same intensity of oversight as someone with repeated breaches. At the same time, a class licence must not become a lower standard of safety. It should be a different regulatory mechanism, with the same underlying safety objective.

The Bill also provides that SCDF may take enforcement action or revoke a class licence where breaches are detected. This is important. Could the Ministry share how it intends to ensure that these enforcement powers are applied consistently, transparently and promptly? Businesses should understand not only what is expected of them, but also how they can rectify deficiencies and return to compliance.

Second, on expanding regulatory capacity through artificial intelligence (AI), as regulatory regimes evolve, enforcement mechanisms must keep pace. I would like to ask how the SCDF is exploring AI and automated technologies such as autonomous drones for hazardous and hard-to-reach inspections, computer vision for visual analysis and automated compliance filing.

These tools should support but not replace the professional judgement of SCDF officers. They should also be introduced with appropriate safeguards, including human review, clear accountability for decisions, cybersecurity protections and proper management of personal and commercially sensitive data.

Could the Ministry share whether SCDF is already currently piloting such technologies and whether it has identified particular inspection or compliance processes where automation would deliver the greatest benefit? It would also be useful to consider a regulatory technology sandbox, where SCDF, industry, technology providers and researchers can test these new tools in controlled settings before they are deployed more widely.

The objective is not simply to conduct more inspections. It is to conduct smarter inspections – to identify higher-risk premises earlier, deploy officers where their expertise is most needed, and give businesses clearer and more timely guidance on compliance. This would strengthen both operational effectiveness and public confidence in community fire safety.

Finally, on ageing infrastructure and risk-proportionate oversight. Infrastructure naturally experiences wear and tear over decades. Fire safety systems may become obsolete, building layouts may change and maintenance practices may not always keep pace with the original design intent. These call for targeted, risk-based oversight rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

In Nee Soon South, for example, we have a petrol kiosk built around 1993, situated in close proximity to HDB blocks and a place of worship. As such facilities across Singapore cross the 30- or 40-year mark, does the Government intend to mandate periodic safety audits and proactive lifecycle maintenance to mitigate long-term structural and fire safety risks?

Age of infrastructure should be considered alongside other risk factors: the type and volume of P&FMs stored, the condition of critical systems, changes in surrounding land use, the facility's incident and compliance history and the vulnerability of nearby communities and residential populations.

Could SCDF consider a risk-based lifecycle framework that identifies when a facility should undergo a deeper safety review? Such a framework can provide greater certainty to businesses while ensuring that older or higher-risk premises receive the attention they require.

Mr Speaker, Sir, fire safety is not only the responsibility of the Government and businesses. It is a shared responsibility of the community. More can be done to equip residents to prevent fires, respond to them quickly and protect one another. I encourage the Ministry to work with us, schools, and community partners to strengthen fire prevention education in the heartlands, especially in older estates where residents may face more complex risks.

This can be done via clear, shareable content where different organisations can share with residents through trusted local networks. This could cover practical topics, such as keeping corridors and access routes clear, maintaining household shelter doors and fire safety equipment, responding to cooking fires, charging devices safely, and knowing when and how to call for help.

Public education should be simple, multilingual, visually accessible and designed for repeated use. When residents know what to do before an emergency, they become the best and important responders of Singapore's fire safety system. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): When it comes to fire safety, one fire is one too many. We cannot take chances. As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure. This Bill gives us the opportunity to strengthen our systems before an incident occurs, rather than merely improving our response after a fire.

I support the authorities' approach to class licensing. This is a sensible way to reduce compliance costs, provided that the licence obligations are clear and the consequences of non-compliance are credible.

Under this approach, individual companies are accorded greater trust while also bearing greater responsibility. Could the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) provide further details on the criteria that companies must meet before commencing operations under the respective class licences? In particular, how will the SCDF assess a company’s safety systems, past compliance record, the professional competence of its responsible officers and its ability to manage P&FMs safely?

Could the Minister also provide more details on the expected scope and frequency of post-licensing audits? The trust accorded to businesses must be proportionate to their assessed credibility. Will the audit regime be periodic or will the audit frequency be adjusted dynamically according to risk indicators, such as previous breaches, changes in business operations, incident reports or significant changes in safety personnel?

A company with a good track record should face a different level of regulatory scrutiny from one with repeated breaches. At the same time, a class licence must not become an excuse for lowering safety standards. Although it is a different regulatory mechanism, it must uphold the same safety objective.

The Bill also provides that, once a breach is detected, SCDF may take enforcement action or revoke the class licence. This is an important point. Could the Ministry explain how it will ensure that these enforcement powers are exercised consistently, transparently and promptly? Businesses should understand not only the standards they must meet, but also how they can rectify deficiencies and return to compliance.

(In English): Mr Speaker, smart regulation is not about choosing between business efficiency and safety. It is about achieving both through smarter tools, clearer standards and vigilant oversight. It ensures that Singapore remains safe and also enterprise friendly. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Andre Low.

Mr Speaker, in January, I spoke in this House about fire safety in our homes. It remains a concern for many.

Just recently, between 28 July and 1 September, five residents died following separate fires in HDB flats. While we should not assume that these incidents share a common cause, even so, five deaths in just over a month should give us pause as we consider this Bill. As such, I very much welcome the Senior Minister of State's commitments that broader fire safety considerations beyond the ambit of this Bill remain a top priority for the Government, and I look forward to further developments in our fire safety regime.

Back to the matter at hand, I support the Bill. It strengthens the regulation of products installed in civil defence shelters, tackles obstructions of firefighting access and fire safety systems, and gives SCDF stronger powers over vehicles transporting P&FM. I will keep my comments today focused on two areas.

Firstly, I wanted to reiterate my call from January to replace existing keyed front gates with an alternative that could be open from the inside without a key and secondly, clarifications regarding the new powers over vehicles carrying P&FM.

Mr Speaker, my first point concerns escape from the home. This was a central issue in my Adjournment Motion in January, and I would like to reiterate the calls I made then. This Bill gives us a timely opportunity to consider how my proposals fit within the strengthened approach to escape routes and fire safety obstructions that are contained in this Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill strengthen the law against obstructing firefighting access and interfering with internal and external fire safety measures. Clause 12 covers acts that obstruct an escape route, passageway or common property, where escape during a fire may become more difficult, and the obstruction cannot easily be removed by someone trying to get out. These are important provisions. In a fire, every second counts. Smoke reduces visibility and panic can affect judgement. A previously familiar route may become a maze and every obstruction increases the risk further.

There were similar concerns that led me to suggest back in January that the biggest barrier for many Singaporeans when it comes to escaping our own homes, our front gates be made as safe as possible by allowing for easy escape without fumbling for a key.

The present Fire Code generally requires exit doors to be openable from the inside without a key, a tool or special knowledge. However, residential units remain exempt from that requirement and it does not seem that the Bill changes this position. Therefore, I ask the Senior Minister of State if they could clarify If the new section 27A(v) of the Fire Safety Act on obstructions would therefore apply to a residential entrance gate with a double cylinder keyed lock or a padlock that forms the only practical route out of a unit.

Relatedly, would SCDF consider allow reviewing the residential exemption in the Fire Code from keyless egress alongside the strengthened statutory approach of this Bill regarding to broader escape provisions, perhaps with a graduated transition period to allow home owners to become compliant and also, supporting households that need help meeting the cost? As I noted in January, newer Build-To-Order (BTO) flats already use gates with an interior thumb turn that allows for easy escape. Therefore, the concern remains older flats and apartments.

Can the Senior Minister of State update the House on whether MHA or his colleagues in the Ministry for National Development have considered my January proposal to use the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) as a means to upgrade older flats to gates with an interior thumb turn?

Can we also update the House on whether there is a commitment to have every new or replacement gate supplied through a subsidised government or public programme be required to be openable from the inside without a key and have double similar keyed locks removed as options. For estates with no upcoming upgrading scheduled, can alternative schemes support the phased replacement of gates that require a key to open from the inside?

I will move on. Mr Speaker, my second point concerns the new powers over vehicles carrying P&FM. The new section 86A of the Fire Safety Act allows the SCDF to stop and detain a vehicle, inspect its equipment and documents, and require information directed to a suitable place for unloading and specify a route. A driver must comply with the lawful directions issued by the SCDF at the scene.

However, enforcement after the danger has passed should account for who selected the vehicle, packed and loaded the material, controlled the documentation and planned the route and trained the driver. An employee may have very little authority over these decisions and therefore, liability for failing to comply with an SCDF requirement is and should be a separate question from responsibility for the unsafe transport arrangements themselves. I therefore ask how will the SCDF ensure that its investigations relating to this new section 86A and the broader P&FM regime will also examine failures controlled by employers, licence holders, carriers, suppliers, consigners or loaders? Will enforcement guidance reflect each party's legal duties and practical control, and not impose disproportionate burdens on drivers alone?

Mr Speaker, the Bill moves our fire safety framework in the right direction. I support the Bill and I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications.

Mr Muhaimin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that this Bill arrives at the right time and I welcome the Government's move to improve fire safety in Singapore at this time.

There has been an upwards trend in fire incidents in recent years – which is worrying. Fire injuries rose from 80 in 2024 to 94 in 2025, and fire fatalities from five to six over the same period. More alarming still, in the short span from 31 July to 1 September this year alone, five lives have already been lost to fire incidents. Behind each of these figures is a family and a home. That is the reality we should keep in mind as we consider the measures before us today.

Sir, I note that both sets of amendments further empower Government officials to regulate and prosecute offences relating to the provision and installation of fire safety products used in our shelters and to sanction those who obstruct or neglect our firefighting infrastructure. I do not think any Member in the House would disagree with these objectives. Where lives are at stake, the relevant authorities must be able to act swiftly and effectively. I support that objective.

But precisely because these are powers of enforcement and persecution, I would like to seek several clarifications from the Senior Minister of State so that this House can be satisfied that the powers are both necessary and proportionate.

Sir, my first area of concern relates to the new sections 4J and 4K. Section 4J provides for an authorised officer to obtain a warrant from a Magistrate before entering a property. That is unobjectionable and is exactly the safeguard one would expect.

My concern is with section 4K which permits entry without a warrant and which sets out the conditions under a warrant may be dispensed with. This is not unprecedented. Clauses exist in other legislation which empower officials to enter premises without a warrant where the conditions for it are met. What is less clear to me is why the case has been made out for it here in the specific context of fire shelters within residential or commercial premises.

The key condition for entry without warrant is "imminent danger affecting public safety" as determined by the Commissioner. But under the proposed amendments, entry without warrant seems to have a pre-emptive purpose. Therefore, I will ask the Senior Minister of State if there have been previous cases where the Ministry or SCDF determined afterwards that damage could have been prevented or mitigated if inspection officers have not needed a warrant to deal with uncooperative owners of premises. Are there other operational gaps that have been identified which directly relate to the need for a warrant by inspection officers? Entering a person's property without a warrant is a significant power, and the House should grant it with clear understanding of why it is needed.

Sir, I turn to the amendments to the Fire Safety Act, which fall broadly into two categories. The first concerns obstruction of our firefighting infrastructures and facilities. The second concerns activities relating to chemicals, absorbing everything previously covered by the Chemicals Weapons Act, and going somewhat further besides.

On the chemical side, I will welcome from the Senior Minister of State a clear explanation of what is new in this Bill beyond consolidation. Specifically, what conducts becomes an offence under this Act, and that was not already caught before? That clarity matters to industry and the public so that they know precisely where the line now falls.

But it is the first category and in particular, clauses 11 and 12, specifying the offences on which I wish to dwell. If I read these clauses correctly, the concern is that maintenance of the dry rises and other firefighting infrastructure is, in some cases, not being kept to the standard it should be. That is a fair concern and one worth addressing squarely.

The House will recall that, in several recent fires, SCDF reported that it could not get the dry rises to work and that its, officers were forced to carry hoses up the stairs to fight the fire by hand. This was especially unfortunate because the maintenance records indicated that those very rises had been serviced and pressure tested and were found to be in order. That gap between a record that says serviced and a riser that fails at the moment of truth is exactly where lives can be lost. A dry riser that does not deliver water when SCDF arrives is not a paperwork failure. It is a potential life-threatening failure.

So, if clauses 11 and 12 are the Government's answer to that gap, I am inclined to support them, but I would ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify three things.

First, how will these provisions fix responsibility for firefighting infrastructure that sits in common property? Much of this infrastructure, including dry risers, is not maintained by the owner of the land, but by the party having charge management and control of the common areas. In the case of an HDB estate, the Town Council and its appointed servicing contractor. I would therefore ask the Senior Minister of State to make clear whether liability under these clauses attaches to the owner, to the occupier or managing agent in a day-to-day control, or to the contractor whose certification did not hold up. This is important so that the offence falls on the party generally in control and not on whoever is easiest to charge.

Second, what will the Government do to ensure that regularly maintain means actually functional, that servicing regimes are tested against real performance and not merely logged in a register?

Third, I will ask the Minister to clarify the reach of the new obstruction provisions in the common corridor context. Obstruction that hinders escape is already a specified fire hazard and Town Councils control corridor clutter through by-laws. But do these amendments now also capture obstruction that hinders firefighting, for example, household items a resident leaves along a common corridor that impede our firefighters access and if so, where does responsibility fall – on the resident who placed the item or on the Town Council that permitted or failed to remove it? Mr Speaker in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I fully support this Bill to enhance fire safety in Singapore. Notwithstanding, I seek some important clarifications from the Minister to ensure that the enforcement powers are necessary and proportionate.

My questions focus on two main areas. First, on entry into homes without any warrant or written authorisation. Section 4K allows this on the grounds of “critical danger”. In relation to this provision, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether there have been past cases or operational gaps that prevented officers from carrying out their duties effectively.

Second, on the amendments to the Fire Safety Act, regarding chemicals, I would like the Minister to elaborate on what is new in this Bill, beyond simply consolidating the existing legislation.

On cases involving fire, there have also been recent incidents where dry riser systems failed to function even though they had only recently been serviced. I would like to ask the Minister where responsibility or liability lies when something like this happens – is it with the Town Council, the managing agent or the contractor? Furthermore, how will the Government ensure that infrastructure, such as dry riser systems mentioned earlier, is in working order? And where common corridors are obstructed by residents’ belongings, should the residents or the Town Council be accountable?

(In English): Sir, I began by saying that this Bill arrives at the right time and I stand by that. The threats we face do not wait for our legislation to catch up. Nevertheless, I have raised questions on sections 4J and 4K and clauses 11 and 12, not to obstruct the Bill, but to strengthen it and to make sure that the powers we grant today are necessary, proportionate and properly targeted. If the Senior Minister of State can address these points, I will be glad to give the Bill my full support. Sir, notwithstanding this clarification sought, I support the Bill.

Mr Gabriel Lam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Civil Defence Shelter and Fire Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. When we talk about civil defence and fire safety, there is one simple principle we should keep in mind: the time to find out that something does not work is not during an emergency.

I support the direction of this Bill. I would like to raise three practical points – on shelter products, fire safety and the expanded role of SEOs.

First, on civil defence shelter products. Most of us do not think very much about our household shelters. We use them for storage and hopefully, we will never have to use them for their intended purpose. Many of my residents in Canberra live in HDB flats with household shelters. They trust that the shelter and the products installed in it will work when needed. That trust has to be warranted.

The Bill strengthens SCDF's powers over regulated shelter products, including testing and certification, and the ability to direct non-compliant products to be recalled, removed or rectified. I support the intent. But I understand that compliance with shelter products has generally been good and there are relatively few shelter door suppliers. I think the Senior Minister of State earlier said there were five of them. So, I would like to understand what has prompted the strong regime now? Are there emerging risks, changes in the market, or gaps in the existing framework that these amendments are intended to address?

I ask this because the new powers are significant. For example, SCDF can direct a supplier to recall a product where there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is non-compliant. There is an appeal mechanism, but the direction can continue to have effect while the appeal is being considered. I understand why this may be necessary for safety. But we should also be mindful of the impact on a supplier who genuinely believes that its product complies with the required standards.

There is also the question of cost. If additional testing and compliance requirements increase costs for suppliers, some of these costs may eventually be passed on to home owners. We should strengthen oversight where it is needed, but the regulatory response should remain proportionate to the risk. There is another practical issue for home owners. An ordinary home owner is not a shelter-product expert. If I engage a contractor to carry out work in my house, I would reasonably expect the contractor and supplier to know which products are compliant and how they should be installed.

The Bill provides defences where reasonable steps have been taken. So, I hope SCDF will give home owners simple and clear guidance on what those reasonable steps are. For example, is it sufficient to check that a product has a valid certificate and to engage an appropriate contractor? The person best placed to know whether a product is compliant is usually the supplier or installer – not the home owner. The rules should reflect that practical reality.

Second, on fire safety and accessways. When a fire breaks out, every second matters. The Bill strengthens provisions dealing with the obstruction of access roads and accessways and interference with fire safety measures. I support this. A fire-engine accessway is not an ordinary parking space. It is emergency infrastructure. But in our estates, there are delivery vehicles, movers, contractors and service vehicles coming in and out every day. Sometimes, an obstruction may be temporary. Sometimes, it may be caused by a third party without the building owner or occupier being directly involved. The Bill addresses situations where an owner or occupier knows, or ought reasonably to know, about an obstruction and fails to take reasonable steps.

So, my question is a practical one. What would "reasonable steps" look like on the ground? If an owner or managing agent has repeatedly told a contractor or delivery operator not to obstruct an accessway, but the third party continues to do so, what more would the owner reasonably be expected to do? Clear guidance would be important, particularly because some of these offences operate on a strict liability basis.

I would also encourage SCDF to work with Town Councils, building managers and other relevant parties on clear signs, markings and education. Where there is a genuine obstruction, enforcement should be firm. But where we can prevent the obstruction through better awareness or design, we should do so. The objective is not to issue more fines. The objective is to make sure that when a fire engine is needed, the way is clear.

Third, on SEOs. The Bill expands their role to conduct compliance checks relating to the transport of P&FM. I can see the operational benefit. If SEOs can undertake routine checks, SCDF officers can focus their expertise on more complex inspections and incidents. But stopping a vehicle carrying petroleum or flammable materials is quite different from conducting a routine inspection of premises. The powers include stopping and inspecting vehicles, checking documents, taking samples and where necessary directing a vehicle elsewhere for safe unloading or disposal. These powers have real consequences for both safety and businesses.

My main concern is therefore how we ensure consistency and accountability. SEOs need to understand not just the law, but also the risks involved in transporting these materials. If two drivers are stopped in similar circumstances, they should broadly expect the same treatment.

So, I would ask how SCDF will train and supervise SEOs to ensure that these powers are exercised consistently and what avenue an operator has if he believes that a direction has been wrongly issued. I support the use of SEOs. But SCDF must ultimately remain accountable for how these statutory powers are exercised.

There is also something we should not lose as we delegate more routine checks, which is experience. Routine inspections help officers understand what is actually happening on the ground. They see recurring breaches. They understand how operators work. And sometimes, they spot a new risk before it becomes a bigger problem. Today's routine inspection may provide the experience needed to handle tomorrow's complex incident. So, as SEOs take on more of this work, I hope SCDF will ensure that what we see and learn is fed back into the organisation and that our SCDF officers continue to build operational experience themselves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the three areas I have raised are different, but the principle behind them is the same. We need strong rules where public safety is at stake. But those rules also need to work in practice. For home owners, it should be clear what is reasonably expected of them. For building owners and occupiers, it should be clear what they need to do to keep emergency accessways clear. And for businesses dealing with our enforcement officers, there should be consistency and accountability. Ultimately, stronger powers must translate into better safety on the ground.

For residents, the rules must be clear. For businesses, compliance must be practical. And for our enforcement officers, there must be proper training and accountability. If we get these things right, we strengthen public safety while keeping the system fair and practical. With these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Speaker, I understand the rationale for this Bill. Nevertheless, I have concerns about the parts of the Bill that appear to relax fire safety requirements and will seek clarifications on them. In addition, I will raise some concerns about fire safety in our housing estates and how these are being tackled.

According to MHA's media release on 4 August, one of the main aims of the Bill is to, and I quote, "ensure that SCDF's regulatory and enforcement powers for fire safety incidents and regulation of P&FM remain robust and pro enterprise," unquote.

Among the changes is a class licensing regime for what are deemed to be lower-risk P&FM. The other significant change in the Bill is to extend the maximum validity period of licenses and permits issued under the Fire Safety Act from three years to five years.

Sir, while it is clear how these changes will reduce the compliance burden for businesses, there is a need for the Ministry to assure the public that the regulation of P&FM remains robust.

Let me first deal with the proposed class licensing regime.

MHA has stated that the proposed regime will apply for a start to the storage of such materials at construction sites, petrol stations, certain laboratories and buildings storing diesel for emergency generators. There will be no need for such business to apply to be individually licensed. Instead a class license would apply to all eligible businesses. In addition, the class licences are not time-bound. We are given to understand that these businesses operating under the proposed class licence will still be subject to SCDF's routine inspections, audits and enforcement checks.

On the proposed class licensing regime, I have three questions.

First, could the Ministry elaborate on the definition used by SCDF to determine if a business activity involving P&FM is a lower risk one?

Second, when it is said that the class licences would still be subject to SCDF's routine inspections, audits and enforcement checks, how rigorous is this? For example, would the inspections be conducted annually? What about the frequency of audits? Would they be regular, ad hoc or based on whistle-blowing or feedback? Sir, I note that in 2025, SCDF conducted 14,755 safety enforcement checks but is not clear which industries were involved and whether the checks were conducted routinely, randomly or in response to complaints.

Sir, next, on the extension of licence and permit duration. Clause 26 of the Bill proposes to extend the validity period of licences or permits issued under the Fire Safety Act from three years to five years to reduce compliance costs for businesses. My fundamental question is: is there any potential safety compromise being made by this change?

The licences and permits issued under Part 6 of the Act concern the control of P&FM. These licences and permits imposed requirements on the storage of such materials, how they are transported and dispensed and on the safeguarding of pipelines conveying such materials. In order to obtain such licences and permits, applicants need to provide the SCDF with detailed information, such as building plans, precise locations of containers or tanks storing such materials, means of ventilation and escape, type and location of all fire extinguishing equipment and fire safety measures, relevant pressure test reports – and a whole lot more.

Sir, workplace conditions can drastically change over three years, let alone five years. Containers and tanks may be moved due to workplace exigencies, fire extinguishing equipment can lack maintenance, or malfunction. Means of escape may become obstructed. With the extension of the validity period of licenses and permits from three to five years, is the fire safety risk increased?

Sir, to be fair, I understand that fire safety checks are not dependent on the licensing regime alone. There are requirements for other checks depending on the type of premises. For higher risk premises, SCDF may itself conduct yearly surveys and compulsory tests for emergency response teams. For other premises, there may be stepped down requirements, such as yearly inspections by qualified persons, professional engineers or fire safety managers. Could the Ministry elaborate on the concurrent requirements that it believes will mitigate the fire safety risk potentially caused by the extension of the validity period for licenses and permits?

Sir, in the final section of my speech, I would like to highlight that there are other premises using flammable materials that require attention. What I am most concerned about are premises which members of the public frequent daily such as food establishments. Such establishments may not be required to obtain the licences and permits covered by the Bill because they are considered lower risk. Nevertheless, many of them such as coffee shops and food centres do contain flammable materials, such as gas used for cooking. Any lapses in fire safety could inflict devastating harms on many.

Residents in my ward experienced this first-hand in May this year when a fire not only guttered the coffee shop itself but had distressing ramifications for residents living above it. Some were hospitalised for smoke inhalation, others had their homes damaged, common pipes melted and the water supply took several days to restore. Residents' lives were disrupted in one way or another for more than a month. Today, their claims for loss and damage are still being investigated by the insurer of the relevant coffee shop stallholder.

Sir, that said, one important positive outcome was that in restoring the coffee shop back to business, it had to undergo a compulsory fire safety upgrade. The coffee shop was required to install a fire suppression system and in addition, liquefied petroleum gas isolation valves were installed at each individual stall.

Sir, in order to understand more about how fire safety at coffee shops were safeguarded, I filed a Parliamentary Question in July. MHA replied that the fire code applied to such establishments, that SCDF did enforcement checks, both scheduled and unannounced, to complement HDB's annual checks. While this basic structure is there, there is a separate question as to whether the stallholders and assistants handling the flammable materials are trained in fire safety.

In July, I asked another Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) as to whether those who are applying for a cooked food stallholders' licence should also be required to be trained in fire safety before being licensed. The MSE's answer implied that there was no such requirement. Instead, the MSE stated that regular engagement and education on fire safety was done for stall operators in hawker centres. Sir, even for this type of outreach, it is not clear the extent to which stallholders operating in coffee shops or eating houses were included.

The use of cooking gas can be hazardous. If a fire were to happen, how many of the personnel at the food establishments would know how to contain it? How many know that there are emergency shut-off valves, or snap valves to cut off gas supply and are trained to operate it? Do they know how to use fire extinguishers? An appropriate and timely first response could make a world of difference.

Sir, let me conclude. As in all things, fire safety is only as strong as its link. In Singapore's densely populated urban environment, any fire incident has the potential to affect hundreds at a time in devastating ways. Even as this Bill seeks to ease the compliance burden on businesses, we must never lose our commitment to fire safety as a non-negotiable priority.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, like many Members of Parliament who serve in their respective Town Councils, I see that the daily practicalities of managing common spaces in housing estates in my role as Chairperson of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. It is from this shared ground perspective that I welcome the Civil Defence Shelter and Fire Safety Bill 2026.

This Bill introduces a range of vital updates to our Public Safety Framework. The establishment of strict liability for obstructing fire access ways and fire safety measures brings much needed clarity to statutory compliance, elevating standards for shelter products through mandatory certification and accredited laboratory testing ensures that emergency shelters retain their protected integrity when residents need them most. Furthermore, introducing a streamlined class licensing system for P&FM seeks to balance regulatory oversight with business efficiency. These reflect the forward-looking approach to fire safety regulation.

It is precisely because this legislation provides such robust new mechanisms that we have available opportunity to refine how these provisions are operationalised on the ground. By aligning daily administrative processes with the new legal tools in this Bill, we can achieve even greater speed and effectiveness in keeping the common spaces in our estates safe.

Currently, when a fire safety concern in an HDB flat is flagged, SCDF typically notifies the Town Council about the specific unit involved. However, under section 28 of the Fire Safety Act, if an issue remains outstanding past SCDF's strict three-day action window, sometimes due to practical ground difficulties, such as uncooperative residents or individuals who briefly remove clutter only to replace days later, SCDF may serve a formal Fire Hazard Abatement Notice to the Town Council.

Under the current practice which I have observed, serving a statutory notice tends to result in a massive enforcement operation across the entire block with multiple units served abatement notices by the Town Council. These can create significant friction and disruption for residents across the whole block while introducing an administrative layer that actually delays taking swift targeted action on a specific unit causing the hazard. Because of this, using Town Councils as administrative intermediaries under section 28 is not always the most expeditious way to ensure fire hazards are removed.

At the same time, there is a need to address another growing challenge on the ground – the operational tendency for fire safety enforcement to become complaint-driven. It is not uncommon for fire safety complaints submitted to SCDF to be weaponised as part of ongoing neighbour disputes. When this happens, both SCDF and Town Councils may end up expending substantial time and resources addressing localised disputes rather than focusing on genuine high-risk fire hazards. It is therefore important that enforcement against fire safety hazards is dictated primarily by objective risk, assessments and proactive checks, rather than complaints.

This Bill provides SCDF with clear legal tools to move towards a far more direct objective and expeditious enforcement posture. Specifically, clause 12 replaces section 27 of the Fire Safety Act to make it an explicit statutory offence for any person to cause an obstruction to an escape route, or common property that renders escape in the event of a fire more difficult. Furthermore, clause 10 inserts sections establishing the obstructing access ways of fire safety measures is an offence. By removing the need to prove intense or prolonged negligence, the legislation provides SCDF with a clear direct path to engage an offender immediately. Clause 9 also amends section 21 to expand the powers of SEOs, providing the statutory foundation for SCDF personnel to operate directly on the ground.

To maximise the efficiency of these new provisions, I seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State on four specific operational points.

First, when SCDF officers independently identify a unit specific violation during their own estate checks, will SCDF issue direct advisories on notices to that specific occupier rather than only issuing a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice to the Town Council?

Secondly, where individual fire safety hazard requires formal intervention due to persistent non-compliance, will the Ministry leverage clause 9 to deploy SCDF officers and SEOs to engage a specific unit directly so that the hazard is removed more expeditiously?

Third, when SCDF issues an Fire Hazard Abatement Notice to a Town Council, can the notice specify the exact offending unit numbers rather than broadly citing the entire block which obliges Town Councils to execute blanket enforcement operations across the whole block?

Fourth, in light of the strict liability provisions in clause 10, how will SCDF ensure that its enforcement priorities are guided by objective professional risk assessments of genuine hazards rather than being drawn into localised neighbour disputes?

Mr Speaker, let me be clear. I fully accept and embrace Town Councils' statutory duty to maintain common property and enforce estate by laws. I am not seeking to pass off Town Councils' estate management responsibilities to SCDF. However, when it comes to fire safety enforcement, the focus should be on ensuring the expeditious removal of specific fire hazards. Residents recognise SCDF as the nation's premier fire safety authority. When SCDF officers engage residents directly on fire hazards, they carry an unquestioned institutional authority that will likely command faster compliance and resolve hazards at the source.

The legal tools in this Bill allow us to build a more collaborative and efficient model. Town Councils will continue managing routine estate upkeep and resident education while SCDF exercises its direct legal powers to resolve specific fire safety infringements. This ensures accountability falls directly on the individual creating the hazard and most importantly keeps our estate safe. Sir, notwithstanding these points. I support the Bill.

Mr David Hoe.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. Fire safety and civil defence preparedness is something that most of us hopefully never have to think too much about. But when an emergency happens, everything has to work. Our household shelters are also known as bomb shelters to our residents must work as it is intended. A fire engine must be able to reach the building. Firefighters must be able to get the equipment that they need and residents must be able to get out safely. We cannot wait until an emergency to discover that something is defective, block or no longer working properly.

In 2025 alone, SCDF responded to 2,050 fire calls, more than half, or 1,051 of these calls were fires in residential premises. There were 94 injuries requiring hospital admissions and six fatalities. The past eight months have also featured a number of residential fires. Unfortunately, resulting in deaths that have been reported in the media. And this reinforces why stronger powers in this Bill matters.

I have two main areas concerning residents that I would like to seek clarification on and a brief point on the new class of licensing regime.

First, what happens to regulated shelter products, especially bomb shelter doors after they have been in our homes for many years?

The Civil Defence Shelter Act has required households or storey shelters in new residential developments since the late 1990s. This means household shelters or bomb shelters in our home today, for some, could be nearly three decades old. Today, home owners are expected to maintain their shelters. For example, home owners should check whether the shelter door works properly and the parts are not rusting.

But there is also existing product certification and surveillance regime. Under the SCDF requirement, household shelter products are subject to cyclic testing every three years whereas with the other aspects of water tightness, dimension quoting, rubber gasket tested annually.

There is an important difference. Testing whether a product or model continues to meet the SCDF standards is one thing. Knowing whether the actual door that has been sitting in someone's home for 20 or 25 years is still in a good condition is another. That particular door may have deteriorated because of age, rust or wear and tear.

So, my first question to the Senior Minister of State is do we have a proportionate way of making sure that this older shelter product remains serviceable over an entire lifespan?

I am not suggesting mandatory inspection by SCDF for every bomb shelter for every few years. That would be excessive. Rather, perhaps there could be simple guidance for home owners on what to look out for, recommendations on when the older doors should be professionally checked by our targeted inspection if problems are found in a particular model or batch. Can the Senior Minister of State share whether something like this already exists or is it being considered?

There is a second issue. Imagine a particular bomb shelter that has been properly certified that has been installed about 20 years ago. Years later, we discover that there is a defect affecting hundreds or thousands of these doors. SCDF's current requirement today uses serial labels to help to trace regulated sheltered products to their installation location. But does the traceability extend to older doors that was installed many years ago?

I understand that the number of entities today that is providing this is small. But my question is – for those that were built 30 years ago, are we able to trace their installer? If a defect is discovered in an older model or batch, will SCDF be able to identify and notify all households quickly, including where the records may sit with our HDB developers and also other parties.

And here comes a practical question that residents will naturally ask – who pays? If a home owner bought the flat in good faith and he or she did nothing to cause the defect, should he or she have to pay for inspection or replacement? This becomes even more important if the original supplier or installer is no longer around. We should avoid creating a situation where residents hesitate to report possible defects because they fear footing the cost of inspection or replacement.

My view is quite simple. If a home owner neither has known nor prevented a systemic product defect, he or she should not unexpectedly be left to bear with the cost.

I also note that the direction takes effect when an appeal is being considered. With such a direction as being issued to the home owner, the home owner will incur substantive rectification cost and if later succeeds in the appeal, how would he or she be able to deal with the cost that has been paid earlier?

My second area for clarification is about keeping fire access and fire safety measures clear when they are needed.

The Bill strengthens the law against obstruction of fire access and fire safety measures. It places duties on owners and occupiers, but it also applies to other persons who themselves cause fire hazards. Again, I support this principle, because if someone is blocking the firefighters from doing their job, we should deal with it. But from the perspective of the ordinary resident or business owner, it comes down to two very practical questions: number one, what exactly is considered as obstruction; and number two, what am I reasonably expected to do about it?

Today, there are already some objective standards. SCDF currently advises that in residential common corridor should retain at least 1.2 metres of unobstructed escape passages. Shoe racks and foldable clothes racks may be permitted, subjected to this clearance, while staircase and the immediate landing should remain completely clear. The Fire Code similarly specifies the minimum width for fire engine access roads and accessways, depending on the type of buildings.

Earlier in July, I asked a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on whether the fire code of 1.2 metres shopfront clearance should be aligned with the Building and Construction Authority's wider accessibility standards. The Minister explained that the two codes serve two different purposes and 1.2 metres remain sufficient for emergency evacuation.

I accept that distinction, but my question is different today. If we are placing clearer legal responsibility on owners and occupiers, can we make applicable standards equally clear to them? This is because, for the everyday, ordinary residents, the question may be simply, can I put my shoe rack here or can I put my cupboard here? For the building operators, it is can the vehicle stop here for a few minutes? For a business, can the goods be stored beside this installation?

I also note that when an owner or occupier actually cause such an obstruction, the Bill makes strict liability offence. That makes clarity about what is and is not permitted even more important. Could SCDF therefore translate these requirements into simple visual and scenario-based guidance?

At the heart of it, the law may need to be technically broad, but compliance should be as simple as possible. When I previously raised a PQ about evacuation arrangement for seniors and residents with mobility impediments, the Minister highlighted the Fire Safety Kaki's initiative.

SCDF and the National Fire and Emergency Preparedness Council and the Peoples' Association have also launched the Better Awareness Safe Homes (BASH) campaign, including a home fire safety checklist and community volunteers who help to identify fire hazards. Can such community channels, together with Town Councils and managing agents also be used to communicate everyday fire safety responsibilities?

The other question is what is expected of the owner or occupier when somebody else created that obstruction? The phrase here is know or ought to know, but this goes beyond actual knowledge. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify how will SCDF apply this test? For example, will it depend on how obvious the long-standing obstruction is, whether previous notices have been given, or whether the person or the resident or someone professionally responsible for managing their premises?

What constitutes as reasonable steps once a person becomes aware of the obstruction? That is particularly important because the person who create the obstruction may not always be the owner or occupier. A visitor or delivery driver might leave something temporary in the wrong place. A vehicle might be parked across an accessway, or an unknown resident might leave an object on a common property.

In these circumstances, what is the responsibility of the owner or occupier's duty? What are the reasonable steps that he or she has to take that would be considered reasonable? For example, where removal is not within the owner or occupier's control, could reasonable steps include promptly reporting the obstruction, contacting the responsible person or managing agent, and arranging for removal within a reasonable period?

In 2025, SCDF conducted 14,750 fire safety enforcement checks, issuing 2,668 fire hazard abatement notices and 1,209 notice of offences. So, when an obstruction is inadvertent, can readily be rectified and presents no immediate serious danger, will SCDF generally continue to emphasise on education and rectification first, including through fire hazard abatement notice where appropriate? And conversely, will stronger enforcement be focused on serious repeated willful failures to comply?

I think that balance matters. The objective should not be to catch people out, but to make sure that when there is an emergency, firefighters can get in, residents can get out and equipment that is supposed to protect us actually works.

Finally, I have a few questions on the new class licensing regime for P&FM. I support reducing unnecessary regulatory burden for activities that genuinely shows lower risk.

I understand for a start that MHA has identified four categories of activities for class licensing. Could the Senior Minister of State share the risk assessment and the methodology used to determine these activities that are sufficiently lower risk to move away from individual licensing?

As mentioned, there were no fires reported involving these categories between 2020 and 2025 earlier. So, does the absence of the fire necessarily means that the activities are inherently lower risk, or could their good safety record also be at least in part because of the current licensing regime that has been effective in keeping operators compliant? If so, how has the SCDF satisfied itself by moving away from individual licensing that will inadvertently remove a safeguard that has contributed to good safety record?

And this brings me to my second question. With class licensing, eligible premises will no longer go through the same periodic individual licence approval or renewal process with SCDF. I understand that inspections, audits and enforcement check will continue. Can the Senior Minister of State share how frequently class licence premises will be inspected or audited, and how SCDF will ensure that the level of safety of assurance continue to remain strong under the new regime?

More broadly, how will we make sure that something assessed as lower risk today remains lower risk over time? For example, will SCDF monitor inspection findings, rates of non-compliance, near misses or actual incidents across each case, and are there thresholds or indicators that would prompt SCDF to review whether a particular class of licence should continue unchanged?

The Bill provides the ability to vary and revoke a class licence, as well as disapply to a particular operator. Could the Senior Minister of State share what would trigger these actions?

Finally, where class licence premises is found to be non-compliant, what enforcement actions will SCDF take? In particular, when would SCDF require ratification, impose stronger conditions, display their class licence so that the particular operator ought to take more serious enforcement action? Reducing unnecessary administrative burdens makes sense, but lighter touch regulation must give us the same confidence as the underlying safety outcomes.

Mr Speaker, most of us hopefully will never have to rely on a bomb shelter or many of these fire safety systems but when we do, they must work. For me, this means making sure that our older equipment remains serviceable, making fire safety responsibility clear and practical, and making sure lighter touch regulation remains justified as circumstances change. Fire safety cannot be something that we set once and assume that it will remain fine forever. I support this Bill.

Mr Fadli Fawzi.

Mr Speaker, the current Civil Defence Shelter Act sets out that owners and occupants must not carry out or permit another person to carry out any repair or alteration or anything else which is likely to damage or otherwise impair the efficient use of the household or storey shelter as such.

One significant effect of the current Bill is to amend the Civil Defence Shelter Act and grant the Commissioner of civil defence with enhanced powers so that SCDF can better exercise its regulatory oversight over shelter products. Presently, SCDF lacks the power to directly deal with the suppliers, manufacturers and installers who create, sell or install non-compliant shelter products. However, when this Bill passes, the Commissioner can now act against these parties by issuing a section 4H direction.

According to the Bill, the Commissioner can issue a section 4H direction if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that (a) the direction is necessary for public safety; and (b) the shelter product is either non-compliant or was installed in a manner that impairs or is likely to impair the safe and efficient use of the shelter.

As the Senior Minister of State explained, the new section 4H directions cover an existing enforcement gap. This is all well and good. However, I also note that a 4 August 2026 CNA report stated that SCDF has not identified any cases of non-compliant shelter products. This is something that the Senior Minister of State also confirmed earlier.

Hence, could the Senior Minister of State offer some examples of specific regulated shelter products that are meant to be covered under the Bill, other than fire-rated shelter doors? It would also be helpful if the Senior Minister of State could clarify whether there is anything in the market which is prompting the SCDF's concerns about shelter products and motivating the Bill.

Furthermore, Mr Speaker, while we are on the topic of bomb shelters, please permit me to ask three questions about how flat owners or occupants can put their HDB household shelters to use.

First, can the Government clarify whether such HDB household shelters are suitable for long-term human occupancy in non-emergency situations? Second, is SCDF of the view that the installation of fixtures to support long-term human occupancy in HDB household shelters, such as a loft bed, meets the statutory requirement of not being an alteration, which is likely to damage or otherwise impair the efficient use of the household or storage shelter, as such? Third, can SCDF also confirm that the installation of a wall-mounted air-conditioning, or a wall-mounted fan would be prohibited if they are fixed using power-driven nails onto the internal walls of the household shelter, and that this applies to both HDB and non-HDB household shelters?

Mr Speaker, my clarifications not withstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Saktinadi Supaat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Civil Defence Shelter and Fire Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. At first glance, this may appear to be a fairly technical Bill, covering shelter products, fire safety measures, accessways, licensing for P&FM and enforcement powers. But behind these provisions lie a very simple and important principle. When an emergency happens, the systems that we have put in place to protect lives must work and they must work immediately.

This is something that became very real for me last year. In 2025, a major fire broke out at a residential block along Lorong 8 Toa Payoh in my constituency. I was on the ground in the aftermath, speaking with affected residents and seeing first-hand the anxiety and disruption that a serious residential fire can cause, not only for the families directly affected, but also for their neighbours and the wider community.

One thing that struck me from that experience was how quickly a fire becomes much more than an incident affecting one household. Residents may have to leave their homes, elderly residents may require assistance, families worry about when they can return and neighbours understandably ask whether their own homes are safe.

In those moments, residents do not distinguish between the different components of our fire-safety system. They simply expect the system to work: equipment to function, access routes to be clear, building systems to perform as intended and our emergency responders to be able to reach them quickly. That is why resilience has to be built into the entire chain before an emergency happens.

I also saw the demanding conditions under which our SCDF officers operate. When a serious fire occurs in a high-rise residential environment, every part of our fire-safety ecosystem matters, from access and equipment, to building systems, maintenance, preparedness and the ability of our emergency responders to act quickly. That experience reinforced something which is easy to overlook when we discuss legislation, such as this.

So, fire safety is ultimately about the last mile. It is not enough for safety requirements to exist on paper. What matters is whether our buildings, equipment, accessways and safety systems are properly maintained and ready to perform when an emergency actually occurs.

It also reminded me that fire safety is not only about hardware. There is a human element, whether residents know what to do, whether evacuation routes are kept clear, whether those who may need additional assistance can be helped, and whether building managers and residents are prepared before an emergency happens.

It is from this perspective that I support the thrust of the Bill, and I have several points for clarification.

First, keeping fire access and safety measures effective. The Bill strengthens the provisions dealing with obstruction of fire-engine access roads and accessways, as well as interference with fire-safety measures. Owners and occupiers will have responsibilities not only where they themselves cause an obstruction or interference, but also, in certain circumstances, to take reasonable steps where they know or ought to know that a problem exists. Some of these offences operate on a strict-liability basis. I support the objective.

In an emergency, an accessway that is obstructed or a safety installation that cannot function properly can impede the work of our emergency responders when time is critical. However, I would appreciate the Minister's clarification on how responsibility will be determined in more complex situations. In an HDB estate, condominium, commercial development or mixed-use building, responsibility for a particular space or safety measure may involve different parties – an owner, occupier, Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST), managing agent, tenant or contractor.

Where there is shared responsibility, how will SCDF determine who is accountable? And particularly where strict liability applies, will SCDF provide practical guidance on what constitutes the "reasonable steps" expected of owners and occupiers? Strong enforcement should be accompanied by clear expectations, so that people who genuinely want to comply know what they need to do.

Second, can technology help us move from periodic maintenance towards more continuous assurance? This is an area where I believe there is considerable potential. For high-rise residential buildings in particular, could SCDF, together with HDB, Town Councils and the relevant agencies, explore the wider use of smart sensors, Internet-of-Things monitoring and other technologies to continuously monitor the operational status of critical fire-safety equipment?

Where technically feasible, such systems could provide early warning when equipment is showing signs of deterioration or malfunction, rather than relying only on a fault being discovered during the next scheduled inspection. Over time, we should consider whether appropriate critical systems can move towards predictive maintenance, identifying problems before they become failures.

I recognise that this will have cost and implementation implications, particularly for older buildings. So, perhaps this can be risk-based, prioritising older equipment, higher-risk buildings or systems where the consequences of failure are greatest. Could particular attention, for example, be given to older high-rise HDB blocks with more constrained evacuation routes or with one stairwell?

Relatedly, could we consider whether older critical fire-safety equipment should be subject to more regular operational testing or drills as it ages, and whether there should be clearer triggers for accelerated replacement where equipment repeatedly develops faults or is approaching the end of its reliable service life? The objective is not technology for technology's sake. It is to give building managers and the authorities greater assurance that when critical equipment is needed, it will actually work.

There is a broader principle here. Across many industries, maintenance is increasingly moving from fixed schedules towards condition-based and predictive maintenance. Instead of asking only whether equipment was inspected six months ago, technology can increasingly help us ask a more useful question: what is its condition today?

Fire safety should progressively benefit from the same approach. Not every piece of equipment needs a sensor and the economics may not make sense everywhere. But for critical systems where failure could have serious consequences, SCDF could consider pilots with HDB and Town Councils, particularly in older or higher-risk buildings, and assess the costs, reliability and actual safety benefits before wider deployment. The aim is simple: detect deterioration before failure, rather than discover failure when the equipment is most needed.

There is one further dimension we should not overlook: the preparedness of residents themselves. We can have good equipment, strong regulations and effective enforcement, but residents also need to know what to do when an emergency occurs. This is particularly important in older estates, where there may be more elderly residents, including some who live alone or have mobility difficulties.

Alongside improvements in hardware, I hope SCDF can continue working with Town Councils, grassroots organisations and community partners on practical preparedness: evacuation procedures, keeping escape routes clear and identifying residents who may require additional assistance. Technology can strengthen our systems, but community preparedness remains an important part of resilience.

Third, protecting residents without placing unreasonable burdens on them. The Bill introduces a regulatory framework for "regulated shelter products" used in household and storey shelters. These products will be subject to applicable standards and certification requirements, including COCs.

There are also offences dealing with false test reports, improper certification, false representations and the supply or installation of non-compliant products. This is important. If a shelter is intended to protect residents during an emergency, residents should be able to trust that the components installed in it meet the required standards. But I would like to look at this from the perspective of an ordinary home owner. Most residents are not engineers or fire-safety experts. If a home owner engages a contractor and is told that a particular shelter product is approved and compliant, the home owner will naturally rely, to some extent, on the expertise and representations of that contractor.

So, could the Senior Minister of State clarify what reasonable due diligence is expected of an ordinary home owner? And could SCDF consider making compliance as straightforward as possible, for example, through a simple online registry or digital verification mechanism that allows a resident to check whether a product or certification is valid? The principle should be straightforward: we should come down firmly on manufacturers, suppliers, certifiers or installers who knowingly compromise safety, while ensuring that residents who have acted reasonably and in good faith are not inadvertently caught out.

Fourth, supporting the shelter product industry to adapt and transition. I would also like to say a few words about the impact of these amendments on the businesses and individuals who operate in this space. The Bill introduces new offences and enforcement powers. These are necessary. But they also represent a significant change in the regulatory environment for manufacturers, suppliers and installers.

As these amendments come into force, I would encourage SCDF, if possible, to work closely with the industry to ensure that the transition is well-supported. This means clear and accessible guidance on what the new requirements entail, what constitutes compliance and what businesses should do if they are uncertain. It also means giving businesses sufficient lead time to adjust their processes, supply chains and documentation practices before enforcement begins in earnest.

For the shelter products sector in particular, the new COC requirements will place greater demands on suppliers. Given that the sector is relatively small and concentrated, it should be possible for SCDF to engage each of them directly and ensure that they are well-prepared.

I am heartened that the Senior Minister of State mentioned that SCDF had previously consulted the industry in 2024 on these changes. But I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State to consider: first, as the regulatory framework matures and the approved supplier list potentially expands, how would SCDF ensure that new entrants to the market are adequately supported to meet the required standards from the outset, rather than discovering gaps only after a product has been supplied or installed?

There is an important regulatory principle here as well. Particularly when a new regime is introduced, we should distinguish between businesses that deliberately circumvent safety requirements and businesses that are genuinely trying to comply, but need time and guidance to understand a new framework.

The former should rightly face firm enforcement. But for the latter, especially during the transition, regulatory engagement and education may sometimes achieve better outcomes than enforcement alone. Ultimately, our objective is not to maximise the number of enforcement actions. It is to maximise compliance and through that, improve safety. If suppliers understand what is required and non-compliant products can be identified before they reach consumers, the regulatory system has succeeded before enforcement becomes necessary.

Good regulation should not only deter non-compliance. It should also make compliance straightforward for those who genuinely want to do the right thing. I hope SCDF will approach implementation with that principle in mind.

Fifth, strong enforcement powers must remain proportionate. The Bill gives the Commissioner significant powers in relation to non-compliant shelter products, including directions for removal and rectification. Where there is non-compliance with a direction, there are powers to enter premises. And where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a non-compliant shelter product poses an imminent danger affecting public safety, the Bill provides for entry without a warrant in specified circumstances.

I can understand the need for this. But if there is an imminent danger to residents or the public, authorities must be able to intervene quickly. But entry into someone's home is also a significant exercise of state power. Could the Senior Minister of State therefore elaborate on how the threshold of "imminent danger affecting public safety" will be applied in practice and what safeguards and internal authorisations will govern the use of such powers? This is not an argument against strong powers. It is about ensuring that strong powers are accompanied by appropriate safeguards and exercised proportionately.

Sixth, risk-based regulation for businesses. I also welcome the introduction of class licensing for certain regulated activities involving P&FM. The Bill allows specified persons or classes of persons to undertake regulated activities under a class licence, subject to prescribed conditions, rather than requiring every operator to obtain an individual licence.

This is a sensible direction. Good regulation should focus regulatory resources where the risks are greatest. Where risks are standardised and well understood, we should avoid imposing administrative requirements simply because that has historically been the way regulation was structured. Could the Senior Minister of State share what risk criteria will determine whether an activity is suitable for class licensing and how SCDF will continue to monitor compliance?

It would also be useful to know whether the Ministry expects the change to generate meaningful savings in compliance costs or processing time for businesses. If we can maintain the same or indeed, a higher level of public safety while reducing unnecessary regulatory friction, that is a good regulatory outcome.

And finally, Mr Speaker, strengthening controls over the transport of hazardous materials. The Bill strengthens SCDF's powers over vehicles transporting P&FM. These include powers to stop and inspect vehicles, examine documents and where necessary, direct vehicles to suitable locations. SCDF may also specify routes or escort vehicles. These are significant powers, but the potential consequences of an incident involving hazardous materials on our roads can also be significant.

Could the Senior Minister of State elaborate on how such interventions will be coordinated operationally with other agencies, where necessary, particularly where a vehicle has to be stopped, diverted or escorted on a busy road? And looking ahead, I hope we will continue to explore how technology and data can strengthen this regime, whether through digital permits, better information-sharing or more risk-based monitoring of higher-risk movements.

Mr Speaker, let me return to where I started. My experience with the Lorong 8 Toa Payoh fire reinforced for me that fire safety is ultimately tested not in our regulations but in an emergency, at the last mile, when residents and our emergency responders depend on every part of the system working as intended. Indeed, we can think of fire safety as a chain. We need the right standards, credible testing and certification, proper installation, regular maintenance and testing, clear accountability, effective enforcement and ultimately, the ability to respond quickly and effectively when an emergency occurs.

A weakness at any point can compromise the effectiveness of the entire system. And increasingly, technology should allow us to strengthen that chain, moving where appropriate, from periodic checks towards earlier detection, remote monitoring and predictive maintenance and save lives.

At the same time, technology cannot replace preparedness. We should continue regular drills, public education and targeted outreach, particularly for older estates and residents who may need more assistance during an emergency. The test of our fire-safety regime is therefore not simply whether we have the right regulations, or whether the required systems have been installed. The real test is whether the entire safety ecosystem works effectively on the day it is needed. The Bill strengthens that ecosystem.

My questions are principally about its implementation, ensuring clarity for residents and businesses, supporting industry through the transition, proportionality in enforcement, clearly assigned responsibility and making greater use of technology to identify risks before they become failures. With these clarifications, Sir, I support the Bill.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.18 pm until 3.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Senior Minister of State Goh Pei Ming.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Members who have spoken and for expressing their support for the Bill.

I will first address Members' queries on the regulation of civil defence shelter products, followed by their queries on the amendments related to the Fire Safety Act. I will then briefly address Members' other suggestions.

I will begin with the queries relating to shelter products, such as the shelter door of a household shelter.

Mr Gabriel Lam asked why a stronger regime is needed now, given the industry's high level of compliance, and the answer lies in the nature of civil defence preparedness. We cannot wait for shelters to be compromised before we put in place the powers to act against errant parties. So, SCDF continually reviews its regulatory toolkit to ensure it remains fit-for-purpose. Arising from these reviews, we are taking the opportunity to close a gap that exists in law, and give SCDF the tools to respond decisively if and when the need arises.

Mr Fadli Fawzi asked what shelter products will be covered under the new powers. For now, SCDF will regulate only shelter doors as they are a critical component to structural integrity and effectiveness of the shelter. Mr Fadli also asked whether shelters can be used for long-term occupancy. There is no ban today against such use, but the shelter must still be kept useable for emergencies so there can be no permanent fixtures in the shelter.

There were also several questions on whether home owners can conduct works, such as drilling in their shelters, without compromising their effectiveness. SCDF has published guidelines on works that are allowed and not allowed. This can be found on their website, but the key point is that works should not compromise the structural integrity of the shelter.

Mr David Hoe also asked whether there is a practicable way of looking after the older shelter products over their entire lifespan.

SCDF's approach focuses on ensuring compliance at the point of supply and installation. Suppliers of shelter doors are subjected to a robust testing and inspection regime which provides the quality assurance that the doors are durable in the first instance. Also, at the point of commissioning of new doors, on-site inspections are made to ensure that they are installed according to the required technical standards.

Taken together, these ensure that shelters are structurally sound and effective over the life of the building in which they are installed. That is why it is important for these laws to be in place, and SCDF properly empowered to test products and take various actions against errant companies throughout the supply chain.

The intent of the regime is not to require home owners to undertake elaborate maintenance. If home owners are so inclined, they can take simple preventive maintenance steps, such as lubricating the moving parts, cleaning the rubber seals and operating the shelter door periodically to make sure it works smoothly. Information on the maintenance of household shelters can be found on the SCDF website.

Second, Mr David Hoe asked whether there are sufficient records to trace the affected households and to inform them, should a defective shelter product be discovered subsequently. The short answer is yes, they can. This is because the certification body maintains key records, such as the identity of COC holders and records of serial labels issued. Should any systemic defect in shelter products be detected, SCDF can work with the relevant agencies and certification body to locate the affected doors and to make rectifications.

Third, on who will bear the cost of inspection or replacement of a defective shelter product if the home owner had bought the flat in good faith. Mr Hoe has articulated the right principle. It is also the same principle that guides SCDF's approach, which is to direct the responsible party in the supply chain, whether the certification body, supplier, installer or building owner, to bear the costs of testing and rectification. If the person to whom the direction is issued refuses or fails to comply, SCDF may carry out the work and recover costs from that party. This is consistent with SCDF's approach in a previous case involving non-compliant fire-rated doors, where the responsible certification body was directed to bear the costs.

The Bill also provides important statutory protection for innocent home owners under the new section 4F. If the home owner has purchased a certified product from a supplier, they should not be liable or responsible if there are subsequent issues with the product. This is only fair because home owners are generally not involved in the supply chain and should not be penalised as a result of errant parties in the supply chain.

On Mr Hoe's specific concern about where the original supplier has ceased operating, SCDF will address such situations on a case-by-case basis. This can include working with others in the supply chain, such as the building owner or developer, to do the necessary rectification. As I mentioned earlier, with the existing testing and inspection regimes for new shelter products, it is unlikely that there is a widespread issue with products in circulation through the years.

In fact, I would also like to remind Members that we have not come across any cases of non-compliant products to date. Suppliers of these products have thus far been compliant. They are also established in the market, all of our suppliers have been around for at least a decade and some of them have been supplying shelter doors for more than two decades. Nevertheless, we have made these amendments to ensure SCDF has the necessary powers, so that we can move swiftly if any non-compliance is ever detected.

Mr Saktiandi asked what reasonable due diligence is expected of an ordinary home owner. SCDF does not expect home owners to independently test or certify shelter products. Every approved shelter door bears a tamper-proof serial label with a unique serial number. The serial label is located on the vertical ledge of the door leaf on the hinge side and serves as proof that the shelter door has a valid COC and therefore is compliant. Home owners can verify the serial number against the certification body’s online COC and serial label directory should they have reason to believe that the shelter product is not compliant.

Mr Saktiandi and Mr Muhaimin also asked about SCDF's powers of entry, how the threshold of "imminent danger affecting public safety" will be applied and what safeguards govern entry without notice or warrant. Let me stress that these powers are intended to be a measure of last resort. Wherever possible, SCDF will give the owner or occupier at least 24 hours' notice, or obtain a Magistrate's warrant. I agree with suggestions that there be clear understanding where SCDF enters without notice or warrant. The threshold will be very high such as where there is a real immediate risk of harm to persons. So, these powers will be extremely rarely used. For existing fire safety powers which are similar, they have not been exercised at least in the last three years.

On safeguards, I mentioned earlier that entry under these circumstances requires the Commissioner’s expressed authorisation. When this power is invoked, the officers will present their identification and the necessary documents to the owner or occupier.

Mr Saktiandi asked how SCDF will support businesses and operators as they adapt to the new regulatory requirements. I want to assure the Member that SCDF will not simply legislate and step back. SCDF's earlier consultation with the industry in 2024 is a reflection of the constructive relationship that SCDF has built with the sector.

As these amendments come into force, SCDF will engage the relevant industry stakeholders directly to ensure they understand what is expected of them and will provide clear guidance on the new requirements. Given that there are currently only five approved shelter door suppliers, the sector is small and SCDF is well-placed to work with each of them individually.

For new entrants to the market, SCDF will ensure that the requirements and the pathway to compliance are clearly communicated to them from the outset. This will make compliance clear for those who genuinely want to comply with the requirements.

I will now address queries related to the Fire Safety Act amendments to the Bill.

Ms Lee, Ms Lim, Mr Hoe and Mr Saktiandi asked if we could provide the criteria that companies must meet before they can operate under a class licence, and how SCDF will ensure compliance of such entities in a consistent and prompt manner.

As mentioned in my Second Reading speech earlier, we have identified the four categories of storage premises for the class-licensing regime. These categories are selected based on their lower inherent risk characteristics, such as controlled storage and dispensing settings, and comparatively lower risk of fire spread.

As I mentioned earlier, SCDF has studied the risks professionally, and satisfied itself that this is a safe move as there have not been any reported fires originating from P&FM storage at these premises between 2020 and 2025. In fact, the extent of regulatory compliance in these four categories is strong. There were only two cases of non-compliance from the more than 500 premises in these four categories, and the two cases were due to administrative oversight – paperwork.

We take a data-centric approach and consider this class licensing regime a reasonable move. All premises that fall within these four categories are eligible for class licensing, so long as they provide details, such as the storage location, types and quantities of P&FM stored as part of the one-time online registration to SCDF. SCDF is open to explore expanding the class licensing regime in the future.

Ms Lee and Mr Hoe also asked about the anticipated scope and frequency of inspections and audits. First, let me emphasise that doing away with the need for regular licence renewal does not mean doing away with the inspections. Even after the class licensing regime is implemented, SCDF will continue to conduct regular inspections of class-licensed P&FM storage premises to ensure they continue to store P&FM safely.

SCDF takes a risk-based approach in deciding which premises to audit, taking into account factors such as past compliance records, inspection history and data from similar premises and past fire incidents, among other considerations. SCDF will also conduct ad hoc inspections if it receives feedback about potential fire safety violations or breaches of licensing conditions involving these premises.

To ensure transparency, the class licensing conditions for P&FM storage will be set out in subsidiary legislation under the Fire Safety Act. SCDF will also engage class licensees on a regular basis to remind them of their licensing obligations.

If a class-licensed premises is non-compliant with licensing conditions or violates the Fire Safety Act, SCDF may revoke the class licence. The company will need to submit a rectification plan to SCDF, which must address all the instances of non-compliance. SCDF will then follow up with an on-site inspection to ensure that all non-compliances are rectified before the company is allowed to re-register for the class licence. We will consider past infringements and the severity of the non-compliance, when considering any re-registration, and in the worst case scenarios, class licensing may be refused.

Ms Lim sought clarity on the industries and nature of SCDF's enforcement checks. These inspections include both proactive inspections and those in response to public feedback. These numbers include the range of premises which SCDF inspects, from commercial to industrial to residential buildings.

Mr Saktiandi asked about savings for businesses arising from the class licensing regime. Based on SCDF's estimates, eligible premises can collectively expect to save approximately $300,000 in licensing fees annually as well as about 330 man-hours annually through the one-time registration process and removal of recurring licence renewal requirements.

That said, I want to make clear that our primary motivation for implementing the class licensing regime is not cost savings or manpower savings alone. Rather, it is a sensible licensing approach for the storage of P&FM at low-risk premises and allows for scarce SCDF resources to be freed up for more urgent and important areas. This also reduces the regulatory burden on businesses.

Ms Lim asked about the measures in place to ensure that the increase in licence validity from three to five years would not increase fire risk. I assure the Member that a longer licence validity does not mean less oversight. SCDF will continue to do enforcement checks and take enforcement actions against any party that breaches the Fire Safety Act or its licensing conditions. Where a licence has been revoked due to non-compliance, SCDF will reduce the validity of any subsequent licence issued to the same business to one year for the next two licensing cycles.

At this juncture, allow me to reiterate that none of these amendments signify a relaxation of inspection or enforcement. It is very much in SCDF's interest to ensure that our regulations are robust, and that our resources are efficiently deployed in a way that keeps systems fully operational and practicable in an emergency. After all, when an incident occurs, our first responders are the ones who step forward to deal with the situation on the ground.

SCDF therefore has every incentive to make sure that they are properly supported and equipped to carry out their duties effectively. I will take this opportunity in the House to acknowledge the hard and selfless work our SCDF servicemen put in every day to keep our homes, communities and people safe. [Applause.]

Mr Saktiandi asked how SCDF would operationalise the new powers for transport-related P&FM compliance checks and how SCDF coordinates with other agencies when a vehicle transporting P&FM must be stopped, diverted or redirected.

I want to assure the Member that SCDF has existing protocols for such inter-agency collaboration. While I am not able to go into specific details for operational reasons, these protocols cover scenarios whereby a P&FM transport operator is detained for non-compliance or directed off a busy arterial road to a safe location for further inspections. In such cases, SCDF will coordinate with the relevant authorities to manage traffic and road safety.

I also want to assure the Member that SCDF will continue to explore technological solutions to make transport-related compliance checks more effective and efficient.

Mr Lam asked how SCDF will train and supervise SEOs to ensure their exercised powers are consistent, and what avenue an operator has if he believes that a direction has been wrongly issued. I assure the Member that SCDF will conduct training for the SEOs to equip them with the relevant knowledge and skills required for their role. This will be followed by on-the-job training. SCDF will conduct regular assessments on SEOs' performance throughout the on-the-job training period and arrange for refresher training if required. If a transport operator believes that a direction has been wrongly issued, he can write in to SCDF and SCDF will investigate the grievance.

Mr Low expressed concerns that the employee, such as drivers, may be held accountable for non-compliances. SCDF will look at the non-compliance holistically and hold the right party accountable. This is how SCDF works today and the Bill does not change that.

Mr Giam had requested to widen the SEO's scope so they can be deployed to engage persistent non-compliant units directly rather than relying on Town Council for item removals. I want to stress that the removal of items from common areas is under the ambit of Town Councils and this is not within the scope of the SEO's responsibilities.

In fact, we had intentionally scoped the responsibilities of SEOs tightly in this Bill. We do not intend for SCDF to take over roles under the Town Council as doing so would burden SCDF further when their resources and expertise is best spent in other higher risk and more pressing areas.

Mr Giam has also made other suggestions about the issuance of notices and advisories. That too is beyond the scope of the Bill, and I would like to reiterate that these matters come under the ambit of the Town Councils as the premises owners as well.

Mr David Hoe and Mr Saktiandi asked how different parties responsible for a building or premises can be made aware of their fire safety obligations. This is precisely the spirit of our amendments today.

One of the main objectives of clauses 6, 10, 11 and 12 is to make clear that fire safety measures which are located outside the building or on the exterior of the building must be kept unobstructed and in working order. The Bill also clearly specifies the parties responsible for keeping these fire safety measures in working condition, and ensures responsible persons and parties understand the standards of compliance.

I thank Mr Hoe for his suggestion to develop simple visuals and scenario-based guidance on what constitutes obstruction of fire safety measures so that all owners and occupiers are aware of their responsibilities. Public education on the responsibilities and obligations under the Fire Safety Act is indeed critical to ensuring compliance on the ground.

SCDF is already working with community partners and stakeholders including Town Councils, MCSTs and community groups to strengthen public education and outreach on fire safety, and we will continue to do so. Moving forward, SCDF will incorporate into its public education content on the importance of keeping fire engine accessways and access roads unobstructed.

Mr Saktiandi asked how responsibility would be determined in complex situations involving different parties such as an individual owner or occupier, MCST, managing agent or contractor. Similarly, Mr Hoe asked how SCDF would reasonably determine whether an owner or occupier "knows or ought to know" about the fire hazard and what constitutes "reasonable steps" for owners and occupiers when fire engine accessways and access roads are found to be obstructed. The question of "reasonable steps" has also been raised by Mr Lam. Let me address each query in turn.

I think we can all appreciate that owners and occupiers are best positioned to be primarily responsible for the upkeep of fire safety measures installed in their premises and the amendments give effect to this. In the case of common areas within residential developments, this would typically be the Town Council or the MCST.

However, in complex situations involving multiple parties, SCDF will assess the evidence and circumstances of each case to determine accountability. This will include reviewing each party's acts or omissions, knowledge, responsibilities and the steps reasonably available to that party. Relevant records, such as tenancy agreements and approved plans may also be used to establish the relevant facts. Whether a person knew, or reasonably ought to have known, about an obstruction and whether reasonable steps were taken, will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

I want to assure the House that SCDF will not assign responsibility and culpability lightly. Liability does not arise solely because a person is an owner or occupier. In this regard, Mr Hoe asked whether SCDF would consider the conspicuity and duration of an obstruction as well as the owner or occupier's subjective particular circumstances and capabilities. The answer is yes. Where an owner or occupier of common areas can demonstrate that reasonable and proactive steps have been taken to keep fire safety measures clear and in proper working order, but the obstruction arises from the acts of recalcitrant individual residents or third parties, SCDF will take these factors into account and apply enforcement action in an appropriate, fair and proportionate and manner.

This brings me to the final point from Mr Hoe on the proportionality of SCDF's enforcement actions. SCDF already adopts a calibrated and graduated approach to enforcement against fire safety breaches. Abatement Notices are generally issued for minor cases of non-compliance, while composition fines may be imposed for more severe non-compliances or repeated breaches. Prosecution may be considered for egregious breaches or where the responsible party fails to rectify the fire safety non-compliances. Where prosecution is pursued, SCDF will have to prove its case before the courts. SCDF will continue to apply its enforcement powers proportionately, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

Mr Giam asked SCDF to establish clear guidelines to ensure enforcement is not driven by localised disputes. The Bill clarifies the responsibilities of the different parties. I want to assure the Member that SCDF will remain focused on its duties. Again, it is the Town Council's responsibility to ensure common areas are free from obstruction.

Allow me now to briefly address several points raised by Members that go beyond the specific amendments in this Bill.

On Ms Lee's suggestion that SCDF leverages AI to augment its enforcement efforts, SCDF is already doing so. For example, SCDF, and Home Team Science and Technology Agency have developed the Targeted On-Site Inspection Tool, which uses an AI-driven predictive model that draws data from various sources, such as building information, inspection and enforcement records to identify premises with a higher likelihood of fire safety violations, and generates a score for each premises. This allows SCDF to prioritise its limited manpower resources to focus on problematic premises to reduce the number of fire safety offences over time.

SCDF will continue to assess how AI can support its work and I thank Ms Lee for her suggestion of a regulatory technology sandbox that brings together SCDF, industry, technology providers and researchers to test new tools in a controlled environment. SCDF will consider this suggestion as it continues to develop its technology roadmap.

Mr Saktiandi suggested using smart sensors, remote monitoring and predictive indicators to strengthen assurance over critical fire safety systems. Indeed, these could be useful tools that can be used to ensure fire safety systems are in good working condition. Building owners and occupiers, working with their managing agents, ultimately make the call on whether to adopt such systems, but SCDF also keeps abreast of industry developments and shares best practices with industry. Together with relevant agencies, such as the Building and Construction Authority, and HDB, SCDF will continue to review how these technological solutions could be better adopted and share these findings at appropriate platforms. We strongly encourage building owners and occupiers to consider such technologies.

Mr Saktiandi also suggested for such systems to be trialled for older critical fire-safety equipment to identify problems early before they fail. We welcome this suggestion and will explore the appropriate applications. As the Member has rightly pointed out, enhancing maintenance and inspection regimes can result in costs. There is, therefore, a need to take a balanced approach between risk mitigation, practicality and cost.

That said, I want to be clear that all buildings in Singapore are built in accordance with the applicable Fire Code at that point in time. While the Fire Code is regularly reviewed, the introduction of newer Fire Code requirements does not mean that older buildings are unsafe or built to inadequate standards. Where necessary, the Government has required retroactive upgrades to older blocks with critical requirements, such as dry risers and exit staircases.

Ms Lee also suggested a risk-based lifecycle framework for facilities which have been operational for 30 to 40 years. I can understand where the Member is coming from. SCDF adopts a risk-based approach in our regulation of P&FM facilities. This approach takes into account factors such as the type and quantity of P&FM stored and the licensee's compliance history. For example, higher risk premises, such as oil refineries are required to meet more stringent licensing requirements, which includes regular audits, inspections and testing requirements. SCDF does not vary these requirements by the age of the facility. P&FM facilities contain dangerous and volatile substances and we cannot assume younger facilities are safer by default. In the context of facilities, such as oil refineries, this could lead to disastrous consequences.

I thank Ms Lim for her suggestion to enhance basic fire safety and include this in the syllabus for licensing as a cooked food stallholder. As part of community outreach, SCDF partners NEA, and the National Fire and Emergency Preparedness Council to regularly engage and educate stall operators on how to prevent and respond to fire emergencies.

I thank Mr Low for his suggestions regarding general fire safety. That too, is beyond the scope of the Bill today though. Members are right to be concerned about the recent spate of residential fires. Every fire, of course, is one too many. Each fire is a stark reminder of the real human cost behind the statistics, and of the trauma, disruption and destruction that such incidents bring. The SCDF does not take these incidents lightly and studies them carefully to understand what happened and what lessons we can learn when it comes to improving our fire safety framework.

While Mr Andre Low's point on regulating the types of locks in our homes is also not under the purview of this Bill, let me make a few comments about locks.

We maintain the view that residents are most familiar with their own homes and should be given the discretion to choose the security arrangements that best suit their needs. Under the HIP, there are two options – a double-cylinder lock and a thumb-turn lock. Both locks are safe. HDB will explain the differences between these lock types during the HIP process, including how thumb-turn locks can facilitate quicker evacuation during emergencies. Some seniors may also come to their conclusion that what is best to them for the last 50 years of staying in the same apartment, is the safest arrangement for them.

Ultimately, my point is, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. What is important is that residents understand the implications of their choice. And through continued public education and awareness efforts, we will continue to strengthen emergency preparedness and help residents make safer, informed choices in their homes.

Some Members may view that this Bill has only modest, technical amendments, but these are, in fact, part of SCDF's efforts to continually keep pace with emerging challenges. This Bill is a necessary component of SCDF's broader strategies, which includes updating laws and regulations. And when viewed in this broader context, this Bill is not a standalone set of technical changes, but a necessary step in enabling SCDF's longer‑term transformation plans and its ability to keep Singapore safe amid evolving fire safety risks.

Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to conclude. Ensuring the public is safe is a collective responsibility. This collective effort is underpinned by having strong laws, as well as clear and risk-informed regulatory regimes. This is what these amendments today seek to reinforce. It provides: (a) better clarity on roles and obligations of businesses, business owners, occupiers and residents, so that they can be more aware of how they contribute to fire safety; (b) this empowers SCDF to take errant suppliers, certification bodies and testing labs to task when violations occur; (c) it frees up scarce enforcement resources so SCDF can focus on more complex issues, such as investigating possible P&FM offences; and (d) ensures that the overall regulatory burden on businesses remains reasonable, by reducing administrative burden where possible, while maintaining high fire safety standards.

Mr Deputy Speaker, for the laws and the regulations to be effective in keeping us safe, it will require our collective effort from residents and businesses alike. If we continue to work together, we can ensure Singapore will remain safe and secure for many years to come. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Are there any clarifications for the Senior Minister of State? None?

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. – [Mr Goh Pei Ming].

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