Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill

I have to apologise to you as well, I guess, for whatever I have done.

Sir, this Bill will secure our used-water system, enhance our flood resilience and enhance PUB's operations. I have three points of clarification to raise.

My first point is on the introduction of minimum fines. Sections 16, 16A and 17 will be amended to impose minimum fines for offences relating to discharge of dangerous or hazardous substances. Mandatory minimum sentences restrict a judge's ability to exercise discretion in determining an appropriate sentence based on the facts before the court. I appreciate that mandatory minimum sentences can send a public signal on the severity of an offence and serve a deterrent effect.

Mandatory minimum sentences may also signal the Government's view that the sentences imposed by the courts, thus far, have not been sufficiently high. However, there are less restrictive measures for achieving deterrence and signalling to the court that heavier sentences should be imposed. This may include sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Advisory Panel or even statements from the Minister in Parliament on the severity that certain offences should carry. Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on why it is necessary for these offences to resort to mandatory minimum sentences?

My second point is on the recovery of expenses incurred by PUB. Under the current Sewerage and Drainage Act, there are provisions for PUB to recover expenses reasonably incurred by PUB, including from persons who fail to comply with PUB's notices and orders or in cases of emergencies. The Bill will introduce amendments to refine the PUB's powers to recover and apportion costs and expenses as it thinks just.

I support such recovery mechanisms based on the polluter pays principle. These provisions ensure that the cost of undoing any damage done is not externalised to taxpayers. Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what is the intended effect of introducing wording that PUB may recover costs it thinks "just"? What criteria will PUB apply in determining when it will or will not recover costs?

Can the Senior Minister of State share how actively the existing cost recovery provisions have been utilised? Can the Senior Minister of State share the quantum of the sums that have been recovered and the types of cases where PUB have taken steps to recover expenses? Can the Senior Minister of State also share whether PUB's intention is to rely on the cost recovery mechanisms more often in the future?

My third and final point is on PUB's powers to enter any premises without notice in cases of emergencies. Under the current Act, powers to enter without notice may only be exercised for classes of premises declared by the Minister to be liable to inspection without notice or where an authorised officer suspects that an offence was committed.

The Bill makes eleven amendments to allow PUB to enter any premises without notice to carry out urgent rectification works in cases of emergency. This is a significant expansion of PUB's powers. Can the Senior Minister of State provide more guidance on what situations constitute cases of emergency? Can the Senior Minister of State also share which individuals will determine whether there is a case of emergency requiring entry without notice? Upon entry without notice, is there a time limit within which PUB is required to notify the owners of the entry?

Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their interest in and support of this Bill. Let me address the queries and concerns raised under three topics, namely penalties, flood protection and enhancing PUB's operations.

First, on the topic of penalties. Mr Louis Ng asked why there is a need to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for illegal trade effluent discharge. Ms Hany Soh asked how the penalty amounts were derived and whether they would be sufficient to deter the targeted illegality.

Illegal trade effluent discharges have severe impacts on our used water system and, in turn, our NEWater production. They can also pose safety risks to PUB staff. PUB has undertaken much effort to send a strong signal, through industry engagement and publicising enforcement efforts, to reinforce the gravity of such illegal discharge offences. We had also increased maximum penalties in 2012 and 2015, including for three of the offences that we are now proposing to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for.

Despite these measures, there remains a number of recalcitrant offenders. Ms Hany Soh asked for the latest statistics. From 2017 to 2023, PUB prosecuted 90 offenders for 295 trade effluent-related offences in court. On average, about 70% of the offenders prosecuted every year are repeat offenders.

To provide an example, in April 2018, a recalcitrant company was caught in the act during PUB's overnight inspections, discharging industrial used water containing 16 different types of prohibited Volatile Organic Compounds. These compounds are flammable and could cause fires in the sewers and downstream at the Jurong Water Reclamation Plant, thus posing serious safety risks. Additionally, the company's discharge contained heavy metals and chemicals in concentrations that exceeded the allowable limits, which could severely disrupt the used water treatment processes and consequently, NEWater production. Prior to this, the company had already committed 20 offences of illegal discharge over several past occasions. For these acts, under prevailing legislation, the recalcitrant company was fined only $16,600 for two offences.

To give another example, in March 2018, a company was prosecuted for discharging used water containing hazardous substances into the sewerage system at their premises. Prior to this, they had committed offences over four occasions between 2012 and 2015. The recalcitrant company was fined $12,000 for three offences. The recalcitrance of these companies show that the fines imposed on them are clearly inadequate to discourage them from re-offending.

I echo Ms Hany Soh's sentiments that the workers who work hard to maintain our sewerage and drainage system should be able to work under safe conditions. PUB takes all necessary measures to ensure the safety of its workers, including providing insurance coverage for worker injuries. Our amendments will strengthen deterrence to prevent the illegal discharges which threaten worker safety.

Therefore, we are introducing mandatory minimum penalties for illegal trade effluent discharges in order to come down harder on offenders. It will help ensure that, for both first-time and recalcitrant offenders, the penalties are adequate. This is in view of the potential impact to NEWater production. The increased penalties better reflect the severe impact on public safety and our water supply, as well as better align with similar offences in other Acts. Together with the existing suite of measures that I touched on earlier in my opening speech, the increased penalties will help increase deterrence.

Even as we impose heavier penalties to correct behaviour, preventive measures are equally important to avoid having illegal discharges in the first place. The mandatory minimum penalties will work alongside these efforts to deter illegal trade effluent discharge. Let me elaborate further.

Before we grant trade premises the approval to discharge trade effluent, we have a thorough process to review the type of chemicals used and the quantity and quality of discharge from these trade premises. PUB will also assess whether these premises have adequate wastewater treatment facilities to remove their waste or have engaged licensed waste collectors to remove their waste.

We inspect and monitor our sewers 24/7 using a real-time online network of over 100 volatile organic compound sensors at various industrial clusters across Singapore. This is complemented by more than 150 microbial electrochemical sensors for heavy metals and cyanide. If we detect any abnormalities, PUB officers will be deployed swiftly to address the illegal discharges at source and mitigate the impact to PUB's processes.

I urge companies to play your part by properly treating or disposing your waste before discharging trade effluent into our sewerage system.

Next, on flood protection. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the requirement for home owners to maintain their drainage system, the potential financial burden this may pose to home owners and whether the Bill should have a cost-sharing mechanism among private owners who share drainage facilities.

Maintaining a drainage system involves regular inspection and clearing of litter and other debris like leaves to ensure the smooth flow of water through the drains. It also involves repairing damaged drains when they occur, but this would be infrequent. In landed estates, this is a shared responsibility between PUB, NEA and home owners.

For public drains, such as roadside drains in landed estates, PUB has an ongoing programme to systematically maintain, upgrade and rehabilitate them. NEA also performs regular inspection and flushing of these public drains. For private drainage systems, home owners are responsible for the maintenance of their own private drainage systems, such as perimeter drains that run within their properties. Given that private drains belong to the owners of such properties, it is their responsibility to maintain them and it would not be prudent to make use of Government funds to do so. Their failure to repair or maintain their private drainage system could ultimately lead to flooding and property damage at their own premises and neighbouring premises.

Today, legislation already requires home owners to maintain their private sewerage systems and drains. Most home owners already maintain their drains properly today. The proposed amendment in the Bill is to explicitly spell out this requirement.

Regarding the cost-sharing mechanism that Mr Yip suggested, the Bill does provide for this. For private stormwater drainage systems that serve a group of residents, neighbours can arrange amongst themselves to apportion the costs of maintenance. The Bill also provides for PUB to help step in to carry out the works and apportion the costs where necessary, based on the facts of the case.

On drainage, Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked whether permitting PUB to charge fees for assuming the maintenance of private drainage systems could lead to cost hikes for community amenities and facilities. I would like to reiterate that all property owners are already required to maintain their own private stormwater drainage systems. They can choose the most cost-effective way to do so. This allows them the flexibility to choose to do so either on their own or engage commercial providers to assist them.

The situations where PUB may have to step in to maintain these private drainage systems using public funds are rare. This only happens if there is a risk of flooding that may impact the public or neighbouring properties. So, this, indeed, if it happens, is ad hoc. In such rare instances, since public funds are used, it is only fair that PUB charges a fair fee, in line with good financial governance.

As I have explained in my opening speech, actions in one part of the stormwater drainage system can lead to significant impact elsewhere. We seek the cooperation of all premises owners to play their part to keep our stormwater drainage system in proper working order so that we can keep everyone safe from floods.

Finally, on enhancing PUB's operations. Mr Louis Ng also asked what are the costs that PUB can recover that it thinks are "just", when PUB steps in to carry out urgent rectification works instead of a responsible third party.

The Bill provides for PUB to step in urgently, when necessary, to carry out rectification works to restore the function of the public sewerage system or stormwater drainage system and provides the legal powers for PUB to recover the cost of the rectification works from the culprit. This provision applies when there are any illegal alterations, works or damages that affect the conveyance of the public sewerage system or stormwater drainage system. In such cases, PUB will recover the cost of the works that the culprit would have incurred had he undertaken the necessary rectifications himself. This is consistent with the principle that those responsible for causing the damage should bear the cost of rectification rather than for this expense to be passed on to taxpayers.

To give an example, in 2020, a contractor illegally damaged a one-metre-diameter sewer outside Yio Chu Kang MRT station. The contractor was laying gas pipes and had punctured through the sewer, which served a large area of Ang Mo Kio. Conveyance was affected and flow was building up with imminent sewer overflow. The contractor did not have the resources to deploy mitigating measures and PUB had to step in urgently to divert the flow. The diversion cost of about $300,000 that PUB incurred was eventually recovered from the contractor. The cost recovery was done administratively then. This Bill provides PUB the legal powers to do so in future.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about emergency powers of entry without notice. Broadly, they raised concerns on why these powers are necessary, how they will be operationalised, and processes for redress following the entry. Let me address each in turn.

First, emergency powers of entry are crucial to protect public health and safety. A choke in the public sewerage systems may lead to sewage overflow in neighbouring units, impacting public health. A blocked stormwater drainage system may cause flooding during heavy storms, posing safety risks to the wider public and potentially causing property damage to an area.

Currently, PUB must serve a 14-day notice under the SDA before PUB can enter a property to conduct repairs. In urgent situations where immediate action is required to address public health and safety concerns, this is just too long a wait. Damage could already be done. In our experience, most occupiers will readily oblige when PUB explains the situation. However, there is a small number who refuse to cooperate. These powers will have to be used in such situations.

Next, let me address the operationalisation of these powers. PUB officers will only request entry into premises during emergency situations. These are situations when a suspected sewer or drainage choke threatens the health and safety of surrounding units.

In such situations, PUB's authorised officers will obtain the necessary internal approvals to ensure accountability in the exercise of emergency powers. Upon arrival on site, the officers will first seek the consent of the occupier to enter their premises by explaining the urgency of the situation, backed by these emergency entry powers. If the owner refuses, PUB will strive to resolve the situation through other means where possible, such as approaching the owners of other premises further from the choke to request alternative access, and adopting other technical solutions, such as pumping and localised protection. However, these may involve higher cost, more time, reduced efficiency and disamenities to other neighbours. If no occupier is present, PUB's authorised officers would request for the Police to be present prior to entering the premises. After completing the works, PUB will promptly notify the owner about the emergency rectification works and provide contact details for any follow-up questions or service feedback.

I want to assure Members that we strive to balance between individuals' privacy and emergency needs, and PUB will exercise these powers reasonably and judiciously.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the incorporation of Codes of Practice (COPs) by reference. He asked how PUB would ensure that the adopted standards are appropriate and not overly onerous for local communities, especially older estates with unique infrastructure challenges.

I would like to clarify that the new requirements will not be retrospectively applied to old developments. Instead, PUB actively engages businesses and residents in these existing developments that are in flood prone areas to raise awareness on rainy weather preparedness and distributes portable flood barriers to mitigate flood risks for these stakeholders.

PUB's COP on Surface Water Drainage, and the COP on Sewerage and Sanitary Works provide technical information and guidelines for owners of new developments or those looking to redevelop their premises, on planning, designing and constructing the associated systems to ensure that safety and functional requirements are adhered to. These COPs will be incorporated by reference through regulations, giving PUB legal recourse when there are violations.

PUB consults extensively with key stakeholders to develop and amend these COPs. These include professional bodies like The Institution of Engineers, Singapore and the Singapore Plumbing Society, as well as trade associations and other public agencies. This collaborative approach ensures that the COPs are technically sound and practicable.

I would like to assure Mr Yip that we do not adopt a one size fits all approach. For example, the COP on Surface Water Drainage specifies minimum platform levels and crest levels that developments must meet to protect themselves against floods. For developments with links to essential facilities like MRT stations, we will impose more stringent requirements to provide a higher level of protection. In cases where site constraints make it challenging to meet these standards, we will consider allowing alternative solutions such as implementing flood barriers to achieve the same outcomes. In fact, the Bill has also provided for PUB to waive its legislated requirements in such situations.

In conclusion, the Sewerage and Drainage (Amendment) Bill is intended to protect our used water system, strengthen flood resilience and enhance our operational effectiveness. PUB will continue to partner with industry, private developments, and the wider public to engender collective action toward these goals. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.