Second Reading of the Civil Defence Shelter and Fire Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill – Wrap-Up Speech by Mr Goh Pei Ming, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ministry of Social and Family Development

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

2. 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.

3. I will then briefly address Members’ other suggestions.

Shelter-Related Queries

4. I will begin with the queries relating to shelter products, such as the shelter door of a household shelter. Mr Lam asked why 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 are put in place the powers to act against errant parties. So SCDF continually reviews its regulatory toolkit to ensure it remains fir 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.

5. Mr Fadli 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 be kept usable during emergencies, so there can be no permanent fixtures in the shelter There were also several questions on whether homeowners can conduct works, such as drilling in their shelters without compromising its 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.

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

7. 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.

8. The intent of the regime is not to require homeowners to undertake elaborate maintenance. If homeowners 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 ensure it works smoothly. Information on the maintenance of household shelters can be found on the SCDF website.

9. Second, Mr 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 Certificate of Conformity (CoC) holders and records of serial labels issued. Should any systemic defect over shelter products be detected, SCDF can work with the relevant agencies and the certification body to locate the affected doors and to make rectifications.

10. Third, on who will bear the cost of inspection or replacement of a defective shelter product if the homeowner 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.

11. The Bill also provides important statutory protection for innocent homeowners under the new Section 4F. If the homeowner 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 homeowners are generally not involved in the supply chain and should not be penalised as a result of errant parties in the supply chain.

12. On Mr Hoe's specific concern on when 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.

13. 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.

14. Mr Saktiandi asked what reasonable due diligence is expected of an ordinary homeowner. SCDF does not expect homeowners 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 edge of the door leaf on the hinge side and serves as proof that the shelter door has a valid CoC and therefore is compliant. Homeowners 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.

15. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Muhaimin also asked about SCDF’s powers of entry and 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 and 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 exercise at least in the last three years. On safeguards, I mentioned earlier that entry under these circumstances requires the Commissioner’s expressed authorisation, and when this power is invoked, the officers will present their identification and the necessary documents to the owner or occupier.

16. 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 only give 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 those of them from the onset. This will make compliance clear for those who genuinely want to comply with the requirements.

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

Class Licensing Regime

18. 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.

19. As mentioned in my Second Reading speech earlier, we have identified the four categories of storage premises for the class-licensing regime. These categories were 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 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.

20. Ms Lee and Mr Hoe also asked about the anticipated scope and frequency of inspections and audits.

21. First, let me emphasise that doing away with the need for regular license 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.

22. 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.

23. If a class licensed premise 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 worst case scenarios, class licensing will be refused.

24. Ms Lim sought clarity on the industries and nature of the SEOs’ 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.

25. 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 scarce SCDF resources to be freed up for more urgent and important areas. This also reduces the regulatory burden on businesses.

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

27. 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 system 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 would like to take this opportunity in the House to acknowledge the hard and selfless work our SCDF servicemen put in everyday to keep our homes, communities and people safe.

SCDF Powers for Transport-Related Compliance Checks

28. 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 vehicle 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.

29. 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.

30. 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 (OJT) training, and SCDF will conduct regular assessments on SEOs’ performance throughout the OJT 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 the SCDF, and SCDF will investigate the grievance.

31. Mr Low expressed concerns that the employees, such as drivers, may be held accountable for non-compliance. 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.

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

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

Obstruction of Fire Access and Fire Safety Measures

34. 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 ensure responsible persons and parties understand the standards of compliance.

35. 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.

Responsibility of Owners and Occupiers

36. 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 access ways and access roads are found to be obstructed. The question of reasonable step has also been raised by Mr Lam. Let me address each query in turn.

37. 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.

38. 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 and occupier’s subjective particular circumstances and capabilities. The answer is yes. Where an owner or occupier of common areas can demonstrate 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 manner.

39. This brings me to my final point for 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.

40. 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 and again, it is the Town Councils’ responsibility to ensure that common areas are free from obstruction.

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

Leveraging Technology to Strengthen Fire Safety

42. On Ms Lee’s suggestion that SCDF leverages Artificial Intelligence (AI) to augment its enforcement efforts, SCDF is already doing so. For example, SCDF and HTX 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 premise. This allows SCDF to prioritise its limited manpower resources to focus on problematic premises to reduce the number of fire safety offences over time.

43. 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.

44. 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 BCA 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

Fire Safety Risks Associated with Ageing Infrastructure

47. 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.

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

49. 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 fire 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 slightly, and studies them carefully to understand what happened, and what lessons we can learn when it comes to improving the fire safety framework.

50. On Mr Low’s point on regulating the type of locks in our homes, it is also not under the purview of this Bill. Let me make a few comments on locks. We maintain the view that residents are most familiar in their own homes and should be given the discretion to choose the security arrangements that best suit their needs. Under the home improvement programme, 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. But some seniors may also come to their own conclusion that what is best for them for the last fifty 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.

51. 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 strategy 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.

Conclusion

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.