Oral Reply to Parliamentary Question on Non-Compliant Cladding by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law

Question:

1665. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs how did the two brands of aluminium composite panel used as external cladding that were recently found to pose potential fire risk come to possess Class "0" certificates and how did the SCDF discover that they could pose fire risks.

Answer:

1. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think on the 24th of August, we announced the facts relating to the non-compliant Alubond cladding. I need to know from the NMP, when you said two brands of composite panels, are you referring to Bolliya and Bolli-Core?

(Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong responds in the affirmative)

2. Mr Deputy Speaker, following the earlier announcement on 24 August about non-compliant Alubond cladding, industry partners were advised to approach SCDF if they had reason to suspect that the cladding used for their building projects were in any way not compliant with Fire Code requirements. By industry partners referring to building owners, Qualified Persons (QPs) and so on.

3. A building owner proactively submitted samples of two models of composite panel that were used in its building project for tests – Bolliya and Bolli-Core FR. Local Certification Bodies had issued Certificates of Conformity (CoCs) for these two models certifying them to be compliant with Fire Code requirements for use as cladding. The tests, however, found the samples to be non-compliant. The building owner then informed SCDF about the matter.

4. SCDF made a further announcement on 8 December 2017. It has identified six other buildings that could have used these two models of composite panel. Investigations about how this came about are still ongoing.