Fire Safety in Our Homes

Mr Speaker, today I wish to speak on the topic of fire safety in our homes. When I read about the Wang Fuk Court tragedy in Hong Kong, Grenfell Tower in London, or even the Le Constellation bar fire in Switzerland just a couple of weeks ago, I think: these are world-class cities, cities with resources, cities with regulations, and yet, fire found a way.

To me, a fire feels different from other disasters. Earthquakes feel distant. Typhoons feel abstract. But a smoke-filled corridor feels immediate. It feels like it could actually happen to me. I would venture that many other Singaporeans feel the same.

Fire fatalities rose from three in 2023 to five in 2024. And by August 2025, we had already recorded at least eight fire deaths. While this may be a statistical blip, given the small numbers, it is a sobering reminder that fire remains an ever-present danger in our lives.

To be clear, I believe that Singapore has strong fire safety standards. Our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are designed as fire compartments to delay the spread of fire until help arrives. Our Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) is well-trained and effective, and our fire codes and building codes are well thought out and comprehensive.

But our good standards make continued vigilance all the more important. I am glad to hear that the Government has started a review of existing fire safety regulations governing building construction and maintenance work. But we must not limit ourselves to just the lessons from Wang Fuk Court, tragic as it was. We must also be cognisant of other hidden dangers, whether they are established practices that have become collective blind spots or new emerging risks that require novel approaches.

So, today, I want to address three areas where I think we can close important gaps. First is barriers to egress; second, battery fires we invite into our homes and third, the widening gap in fire safety standards across different generations of flats and estates. So, let me take each in turn.

Mr Speaker, there is an anomaly in our Fire Code that I think is worth examining. Clause 2.3.9(a) of the SCDF Fire Code stipulates that exit doors must be openable "without the use of a key, tool, or special knowledge" from the inside. This is very sound policy. In a panic, people fumble and seconds matter. But this clause specifically exempts residential units. So, the standard we apply to shopping centres and offices is deemed optional for our own homes. This is, of course, a deliberate policy choice. But the question is whether we should revisit it.

For decades, our HDB flats came standard with a wrought iron gate secured by a double cylinder lock. So, that is sometimes known as a "key-to-key" lock, that is a lock that requires a key to open from either side. In 2019, HDB transitioned new Build-To-Order (BTO) projects to mild-steel gates with a single cylinder lock with an interior thumb turn that allows for easier egress in an emergency. So, residents in these their flats do not need to fumble for a key to get out. These gates are designed such that it is not easy for a prospective intruder to reach around the bars and operate the thumb turn from the outside.

Of course, I think this is a very positive development, but it also means that millions of our flats still have legacy double cylinder locks. For decades, concerns about intruders overrode the need for fire safety. I understand the logic. But this sometimes comes at a heavy cost.

In August last year, a fire broke out in Jalan Bukit Merah. A couple in their 30s were seen at the kitchen window shouting for help. Their neighbours crawled through smoke to reach them but were stopped by a locked entrance gate. Unfortunately, this couple were found unconscious in the kitchen and later died in hospital. We will never know if the locked gate might have been the decisive factor in this case.

There is an additional compounding factor. We often install big, chunky padlocks on our HDB gates. This is featured on many entrances. So, now, you have two locks, two keys and two points of failure. In a smoke-filled flat, fumbling for one key is difficult enough.

There are also window grilles. Many households install these keyed grilles to prevent falls from height. But over time, keys get lost, or the grilles are not even designed to be opened, to begin with, which means when firefighters arrive with a ladder, another potential exit is sealed shut.

So, what is slightly confounding to me is that we are hyper-cognisant of the threats to egress that are faced by new technologies. We now require digital locks that are installed on fire-rated main doors to be certified, recognising that they pose a potential egress risk. Yet, for established practices like keyed gates, window grilles and other risks, we have normalised a clear safety deviance.

So, I would also like to touch briefly on the Home Improvement Programme (HIP). Right now, as part of the HIP, residents have the option to replace their old gates with a mild steel gate with an interior thumb-turn, so much like those that are installed on new BTOs. Critically, this is a paid, optional improvement, and is not part of the "essential improvements" package. But more worryingly, I believe that HDB continues to offer and subsidise the option of installing an old-fashioned wrought-iron gate with a double cylinder lock as an alternative option. That is, we offer residents the option to replace an old gate that is a fire risk with a new gate that is also a fire risk!

We are subsidising the installation of new fire hazards in 2026. This is not legacy infrastructure we are dealing with and managing, but a new risk that we are actively creating. It would seem, to me, that there is an easy path to addressing this risk. Here are my suggestions.

One, we should make the installation of new entrance gates with an interior thumb turn an "essential improvement" under the HIP scheme, fully subsidised and not optional. Wrought iron gates with double cylinder locks should also be eliminated as an option.

Secondly, we should encourage or even mandate that the pre-installation by developers of gates with single cylinder thumb-turn locks. Easy egress should be the default option and residents that prefer double cylinder locks for whatever reasons will have to make the choice to install it themselves.

We should also develop a phased replacement plan for legacy gates with double cylinder locks for estates that are not set to have an HIP exercise in the near future, prioritising older estates.

And finally, we should incorporate the risks of keyed gates, additional padlocks and sealed window grilles into public education campaigns on fire safety.

The second part of my speech will address battery fires. Active mobility device (AMD) fires rose 21.8% in 2024 to 67 cases while personal mobility aid (PMA) fires saw a dramatic 120% spike. When we banned personal mobility devices (PMDs) from footpaths, many users simply migrated to modified mobility scooters instead. The risk was just transferred.

The new year has just begun and AMD fires are already making headlines. Just last Friday, four people were hospitalised in Tampines after a PMA fire. As for the fatal Bukit Merah fire I mentioned earlier, the SCDF findings indicate the blaze likely originated from a non-compliant PMD battery pack in the living room.

Lithium-ion battery fires are different. Thermal runaway, which is a self-sustaining chemical reaction that releases toxic fumes and jet-like flames that breach fire compartments make them extra deadly. The intensity builds in seconds, giving residents little time to react, or fumble for a key. Standard residential fire extinguishers are often useless as well.

We tell residents not to fight these fires themselves. Yet, we expect them to store, charge and manage these devices within their homes.

On my estate walks, I have had several residents share their fear that their neighbours' AMDs being charged right by their front door, a ticking time bomb that might one day trap them within their own homes. Not much can be done to assuage their fears, as today, as it stands, such charging practices are by and large permitted.

The reality is this. Trying to enforce "compliant batteries" is futile when e-commerce makes cheap imports trivial. The upcoming Land Transport and Related Matters Bill that was tabled today double styled on regulation but is unlikely to solve the enforcement gap.

Our current approach relies on compliance when it is fundamentally an infrastructure problem. So, these are my proposals.

Firstly, I think we should push for battery swapping systems to be commonplace, like the model that is made popular by Taiwanese firm Gogoro. Batteries charged in controlled, outdoor environments – this serves both safety and sustainability.

Secondly, I propose that we build public charging hubs for AMDs, perhaps co-located with electric vehicle (EV) chargers in HDB car parks. Equip them with fire suppression, thermal monitoring and make them faster and cheaper than home-charging. Create the incentive for residents to charge AMDs outside of the home.

And thirdly, I would suggest that we implement periodic inspections of AMDs, especially batteries, with enforced replacement timelines as batteries degrade and age.

I think once sufficient infrastructure is built out and residents learn new habits, we might even consider that it would be viable to outlaw the charging of PMDs and PABs within homes, eliminating the risk entirely.

Mr Speaker, I now move onto my final point. Fire safety in Singapore varies by when your block was built. Newer BTOs have fire-rated doors, thumb-turn gates and multiple redundant evacuation routes. Older blocks sometimes have single-staircase designs, enclosed corridors that trap smoke and densely packed flats.

In July of last year, a fire broke out in Toa Payoh Lorong 8. The fire was so intensed that it shattered windows and spread vertically to the floor above. Flames breached the very compartments that our flats are designed around.

When firefighters arrived, they discovered that the dry riser was not in proper working condition. Water could not be charged up to the affected floors. Firefighters had to manually haul hoses up 10 storeys via the staircase. This represents a maintenance challenge. Infrastructure does not just age, it degrades and testing regimes may not catch all failure modes between annual checks.

Let me address the issue of single staircases. Block 229, the block in question, is a 25-storey point block with only a single staircase. Residents trapped above the burning unit had to flee upwards to the 24th floor, because the single staircase near the fire became impassable. Elderly residents had limited options. Some sheltered in place whilst black smoke seeped into their homes and others relied on neighbours for assistance. Seven people were hospitalised, including a firefighter and a child.

This is not an isolated pattern. Several fires in the last years were in blocks with similar single-staircase configurations, where the most direct escape route was compromised.

And here is the equity dimension: we have most of our elderly, least mobile residents living in buildings with older infrastructure and design standards from an earlier era. Those least able to move quickly in an emergency are those most likely to be living in such housing.

Income can also be a factor. Many rental blocks feature densely packed flats and enclosed corridors as well. We can do more to protect these residents and so here is what I propose.

Firstly, we should consider "Fire Escape Viability" – presence of single-point egress or enclosed corridors – as one factor in Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme selection for flat redevelopment.

Secondly, I propose that we further expand the installation of the Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFAD) to all older flats. We prioritise older estates and those with more elderly residents.

Thirdly, we should roll out sprinkler systems in common areas of older blocks systematically, and not just as pilots. Prioritise blocks with enclosed corridors and densely packed units.

Fourthly, we should implement more rigorous inspection regimes for fire-fighting infrastructure – wet risers, dry risers, booster pumps – with published compliance rates and mandatory remediation timelines.

And finally, we should support our Town Councils with clearer enforcement mandates, and more monetary resources and support to maintain the safety standards and keep fire safety infrastructure in good working order.

Mr Speaker, let me bring this together. I have discussed three areas where we can do better: barriers to egress, battery fires and widening gaps across generations of flats. Safety should not depend on when your block was built, whether you can afford an upgrade or which estate you call home. Singapore has built a strong fire safety system. Our HDB flats are well-designed. Our SCDF is world-class and our fire codes are comprehensive. We continue to improve with each new development.

Our task now is to ensure that excellence reaches every home and that we continue the commitment, regardless of age or estate maturity. Let us make fire safety non-negotiable, not optional, not estate-dependent and not income-dependent. [Applause.]