Protection Against Second-hand Smoke in our Homes (Adjournment Motion)

(11 min) Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I was a smoker for 17 years. I quit because of what I am going to talk about today – second-hand smoke. To be very honest, I did not quit for myself. I quit because I knew that second-hand smoke will severely affect the health of my daughter. I did not want her to suffer because of my choice to smoke.

The rights of smokers have to be protected. They are adults, old enough to decide whether they want to smoke or not. But we need to make sure that others are not affected by their decision to smoke. Affected here is not just about not liking the smell of smoke or the discomfort of seeing the smoke. When I say affected, I mean you could die because of second-hand smoke.

The World Health Organization has said that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke, which can cause coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer.

Those inhaling second-hand smoke are actually exposed to more chemicals than the smokers themselves. Sidestream smoke, the main component in second-hand smoke, is four times more toxic than the smoke that a smoker inhales from the cigarette.

I am especially concerned about how second-hand smoke especially affects the vulnerable amongst us. According to MOH, even the slightest exposure to second-hand smoke can harm babies and young children. For them, even a little is already too much.

Sir, for me the most alarming thing is this. In 2016 alone, 383 people in Singapore died due to second-hand smoke. That is about one person dying every single day. We must do something.

For years, many residents have reached out to me about their neighbours smoking at balconies and at windows. Second-hand smoke enters their homes, and they feel helpless about the health risks facing their families.

 Mr Chia shared how his baby cries whenever he inhales his neighbour's second-hand smoke. Mr Chia feels that he has tried everything. He shut his window panels for most of the day and even installed a fan to blow the smoke away. Yet, toxic fumes continue to enter into his home.

 Zyen is another helpless resident. Her baby suffers from a lung infection and her neighbour smokes. She says, "He smokes at midnight and the second-hand smoke drifts into our room when we are sleeping soundly." How much more long-term damage will her baby suffer, she wonders.

 Another resident, Ms Lam, lives with her elderly parents. She often wakes up in the middle of the night to close the window so that her parents are not affected by her neighbours' second-hand smoke. But this also means there is no ventilation in the home for fresh air. They do not sleep properly and they are stressed out. 

These are just some of the many concerns that residents have shared with me just over the past few weeks. Statistics shows that they are not alone.

In the first four months of this year, NEA received 11,400 complaints related to smoking, a 20% increase from last year. This increase was largely due to people smoking in or near homes.

With more people working from home because of COVID-19, the number of cigarette-smoke disputes escalated to the Community Mediation Centre or CMC has quadrupled from two cases a month to now eight cases a month.

Ms Lim is yet another example. She said that her family started having eye and throat irritation, headaches and nausea during the circuit breaker period due to the prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke. Her neighbour smokes seven to eight times a day, causing her to be "literally basked in a cloud of smoke" every day.

For Ms Lim and other Singaporeans, second-hand smoke is a silent assassin that poisons them in their own homes and they have no way to run.

Sir, NEA has previously said that second-hand smoke is a "neighbourly" issue. It is true. Neighbours should try to solve problems by talking to each other – and they do try. When it does not work, they seek mediation and support from HDB, NEA, TC, RC, CMC, CDRT and Members of Parliament, a whole alphabet soup of authorities. Yet, many residents have found these channels ineffective.

One such grievance was shared with me by Ms Ana. She has suffered a second-hand smoke of a couple living below her unit for at least 10 years. The couple smokes throughout the day. She has applied for CMC mediation, but her neighbours refused to attend the mediation, citing their right to smoke within their own home. Similarly, her Members of Parliament have told her that they are "powerless" and "their hands are tied".

These stories highlight why talk is not enough. CMC mediation is voluntary and does not work when neighbours refuse to participate. Even when Members of Parliament want to help, they cannot seek help from law enforcement because there is no relevant law or regulation to enforce.

A different solution is needed. The "neighbourly" issue of second-hand smoke is not the same as loud karaoke coming from next door or wet laundry dripping from upstairs. It causes long-term health damage and death. It cannot be solved the same way we solve all these other neighbourly disputes.

Sir, the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment proposes that the Ministry bans residents from smoking near the windows or at the balconies of their HDB flats and private apartments. This would minimise the effect that second-hand smoke has on their neighbours.

Our proposal is not new. The US, as well as several provinces of Canada, does not allow smoking in public housing.

What is more, our proposal is very similar to what our NEA officers already do. They issue advisories to residents, telling them, "not to smoke near the windows or at the balconies, as a way to minimise the amount of cigarette smoke emitted from their premises".

All our proposal does is empower our officers to enforce their current advisory.

In the past, NEA has also said that restricting people's actions in HDB flats would be an "intrusive regulatory approach".

However, our law already intrudes on people's behaviour within their homes. We ban residents from being nude in their own homes if other people can see it. We ban residents from keeping cats in their own homes because we feel it might affect their neighbours. Just this March, this House passed my Private Member's Bill, which bans the feeding of wildlife in any place, including private residences.

So, we do draw the line somewhere. Why do we draw the line at nudity, pets and feeding wildlife, but not at second-hand smoke, something that kills hundreds of people in Singapore a year?

Sir, I am sure NEA is not unaware of the impact of second-hand smoke. After all, we do have existing laws that restrict someone from smoking in their car in the no smoking zone along Orchard Road if their windows are down.

So, all our Government Parliamentary Committee or GPC asks for is to mirror these restrictions when it comes to our homes. Ultimately, our proposal seeks to balance the interests of both groups. We allow smokers to smoke within their homes as long as they stay away from windows and balconies. We allow non-smokers to avoid the perils of second-hand smoke. It is a win-win situation.

One condominium in Singapore, Foresque Residences, has already implemented this restriction on their own. Last year, an overwhelming 84.4% of residents voted in favour of it. We believe many other residents in HDB flats and private apartments would welcome such a restriction in their estates.

Last but not least, our proposal is enforceable using existing technology already used on the ground. NEA has been using cameras to catch high-rise litterbugs. These surveillance cameras are focused only on the external facade of the housing units being investigated to capture the act of littering. It can even capture someone throwing cigarette butts out of their window. These cameras have contributed to hugely increasing a number of successful enforcement actions from 10 in 2011 to over 1,200 in 2018. They are effective.

Separately, NEA has also been using thermal surveillance cameras to catch residents smoking at prohibited areas, such as common corridors, lift lobbies and staircase landings. These cameras can "detect objects in meeting high heat and capture images of the smoking offence". NEA can use all these existing technologies to catch those who smoke near windows and at balconies. We have years of experience fine-tuning their use and to minimise privacy intrusion and to maximise successful enforcement. What is missing now is just the legislation.

If Minister's reply is that these technologies are not viable, then NEA should implement alternative solutions to facilitate enforcement. After all, when high-rise littering started killing people, we acted urgently to deploy solutions on the ground. Second-hand smoke near windows and balconies also kills people and we should act on it with the same urgency. We must not let "hard to enforce" be an obstacle to saving lives

Finally, I would like to share the experience of Mr Su, like me, a former smoker. He shared with me that he used to enjoy sitting at his balcony with a coffee and cigarette, and his neighbours would respond by slamming their balcony doors and windows.

Mr Su quit smoking after becoming a father. But he now finds the tables have turned. He is the one slamming the window now because he has neighbours who are now smokers. Belatedly, he realises the impact he has had on his neighbours.

We cannot afford to wait for smokers in Singapore to reach this same realisation.

Sir, in conclusion, for the sake of the health and lives of our children, our elderly parents and other non-smokers, the GPC proposes that this Government introduces a ban on smoking near windows and at the balconies of HDB flats and private apartments. This is a public health concern we cannot continue to deny and leave unresolved.

Response from Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, protecting Singaporeans against second-hand tobacco smoke has always been our priority. I thank Mr Louis Ng for his proposal to curb second-hand smoke. Many Members, including myself, have received similar suggestions.

Let me assure everyone that my Ministry is equally concerned about second-hand smoke. Indeed, I empathise with all who have suffered from this.

We have always recognised the serious health risk from second-hand smoke. We first introduced smoking prohibition in omnibuses, cinemas and theatres in 1970 and have progressively expanded this to more public places. We were among the first globally to impose a nation-wide smoking ban in the covered common areas of residential estates. 

Currently, smoking is prohibited in more than 32,000 places and we will do more.

Singapore has introduced robust policies to discourage smoking, such as raising the minimum legal age of smoking and introducing standardised packaging for tobacco products. Through public education and nudges, we urge smokers to quit their habit.

Consequently, the daily smoking prevalence has decreased from 18.3% in 1992 to 13.9% in 2010 and 10.6% in 2019. We continue to work on driving down smoking prevalence, which will also reduce the incidence of second-hand smoke. 

Let me turn to the issue of second-hand smoke experienced in homes.

 Of the 11,400 smoking complaints received in the first four months of 2020, 58% or 6,630 complaints were in residential estates. As more residents work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an uptick in smoking complaints in residential estates. Ninety-five percent or 6,310 of these complaints were related to smoking in common corridors, staircases and void decks. The remaining 5% or 320 cases involved smoking in homes.  

NEA has prioritised surveillance at common areas, in particular, common corridors, staircases and void decks at residential estates. Thermal cameras are also deployed at smoking hotspots. In the first half of 2020, NEA took 2,400 enforcement actions at these areas, a 37% increase from the same time period last year.

For complaints of smoking in homes, NEA, Town Councils and grassroots leaders take an educational approach and advise smokers to be considerate and not smoke near windows and balconies. Most smokers take heed, except for a small group of recalcitrant smokers. For such cases, grassroots leaders, NEA and relevant agencies help to mediate between neighbours and discuss adjustments to be made. Affected residents can turn to the Community Mediation Centre. They can also raise the matter to the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal or CDRT as a last resort.

Between January 2019 and July 2020, 25 claims relating to excessive smoke, caused by cigarettes or incense, were filed with the CDRT. Quite a number of claimants were able to resolve issues amicably without proceeding to the Tribunal.

Mr Louis Ng and GPC Members have proposed that we ban smoking at balconies and windows of homes. We are just as keen to resolve this issue and have carefully studied these suggestions. Unfortunately, besides the fact that such legislation could be highly intrusive, there are significant practical challenges in enforcement that limit effectiveness.

First, enforcement will be challenging as capturing evidence of the smoking offence is not straightforward. Smelling the tobacco smoke is not sufficient as cameras must capture the smoker smoking or holding a lighted cigarette, as evidence for enforcement. However, a smoker can easily hide behind a pillar, frosted glass windows, or curtains to avoid detection by the camera. Overall, this may entail deployment of significant resources without achieving effective outcomes.

Second, to capture the smoking act, the camera must be placed at suitable vantage points to probe into the window or balcony. For towering flats, finding the right vantage point in common areas to deploy the camera is not always possible. Directly aiming cameras into homes is highly intrusive, unlike surveillance for high rise littering where the camera is trained at the building facade and can be placed at ground level some distance away. 

Finally, this will exacerbate existing concerns about privacy and infringing the owner's rights to his or her private space. Meadows@Peirce is a case in point. A dispute had ensued in 2017 between the condominium management committee and its residents when a circular directed residents to refrain from smoking at balconies and windows. Some residents argued that the management committee should not dictate actions in private spaces.

We have studied overseas practices too, some of which were cited by the Member. Globally, there are few instances of bans on smoking in homes. In the US, the smoking ban in homes is limited to public rental housing which accounts for a tiny fraction, in fact, 1% of the total housing stock. In Australia, some states ban smoking in common areas of multi-unit housing and exempt private spaces, although owner corporations can adopt their own by-laws to cover the private living areas. Indeed, this is similar to what we have in Singapore. Smoking is already banned in many common areas of residential estates. MCSTs can opt to adopt by-laws to expand the ban in their estates, with support from residents.

In US, the ban is enforced by Public Housing Authorities, whilst in Australia, the owner-corporations have to enforce the ban. Even in countries where there are bans, effectiveness has been mixed and uncertain at best. In US public housing, there was difficulty in securing evidence for enforcement and smokers also saw this as a violation of privacy.

The difficulties in enforcing against smoking in homes and privacy concerns can lead to greater frustration, exacerbate disputes and increase social tensions. This was the case at Meadows@Peirce. The overseas examples show that enforcement is challenging.

We must work hard to address the difficult issue of second-hand smoke from homes but legislation against smoking at windows or balconies may not be that silver bullet. Instead, we will pursue a three-pronged approach.

First, we will work harder to engender greater social responsibility. This means instilling consideration for the health and well-being of those around us, not just family members but also our neighbours. We must entrench new social norms of what constitutes acceptable behaviour. For example, stop smoking in homes, including at windows and balconies, and do so only in non-prohibited areas away from others.

NEA will work with other agencies such as MOH, HPB and MND and MSO to explore effective ways of doing this. For example, by developing targeted messages on exercising social responsibility, as well as acceptable social norms. These can then be communicated pervasively across key platforms, including social media channels. Changing norms will take time but we must work doubly hard as it gets to the very heart of the problem that legislation and enforcement, at least with today's level of technology, cannot fix.

Second, we will examine more ways to facilitate productive conversations between neighbours to deal with difficult situations, before they escalate into intractable disputes. For example, we could develop simple messages for neighbours to communicate concerns with one another or share best practices from successful efforts to resolve neighbourly disputes. We will also look at how to leverage community networks and links, including grassroots, to bring neighbours together in conversations.

Third, we will work with agencies to study how these disputes can be better addressed by the inter-agency Community Dispute Management Framework. We will work with agencies to review the Community Mediation Process and the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal or CDRT to enhance their effectiveness when residents have to resort to these channels. Nonetheless, we hope that most cases will not have to end up in community mediation or with the Tribunal. 

The best way to protect against second-hand smoke is for family members and neighbours to help smokers cut down and quit smoking. And if they have to smoke, not to light up at home and instead smoke at non-prohibited areas.

Sir, I fully appreciate the frustration and distress of those who suffer from second-hand smoke at home. We are determined to address this and will work hard with Government agencies and the community on the strategies that I laid out. At the same time, we will continue to monitor best practices globally and improvements in technology. We will stay open to innovative and practicable solutions as they emerge.

Ultimately, mitigating the impact of second-hand smoke requires everyone to play their part. Smokers must exercise consideration for the health of their family and neighbours. As a community, we must help one another build the right social norms for a healthy and gracious society.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. I was really hoping she would just said yes, but just two clarifications.

One, I think the problem is that we are viewing this as a neighbourly dispute issue. If we view this as a public health crisis then the policy direction and the policy outcome might be completely different.

Two, I expected that we would raise the issue of whether it is enforceable and I addressed that in the speech that it can be. Why can we not just use the cameras that we use for high-rise littering there is pointing at the facade of the building that can capture someone who is throwing a cigarette butt out of their window. Why can we not use the same camera to capture someone smoking at their windows or the balconies and not point it inside to the house. So, if they are lying down on their bed and smoking, that is okay. I am just saying move them away from the windows and balconies so that it minimises, not completely eradicate, but minimises the effects of second-hand smoke on the neighbours.

Response from Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: To the Member's first question, we are dealing with this issue of second-hand smoke not just as a neighbourly dispute. The fact that we started legislation to ban smoking in common areas, really, one of the priority is because we want to protect the public from second-hand smoke. That is why there are 32,000 places now that are smoking prohibited areas. So, in fact, the smokers have very little areas, very little space for them to smoke. They cannot smoke in playgrounds, common corridors, staircases and so on.

The reason really is protecting public from second-hand smoke as well as of course making it very difficult for smokers to smoke because we hope that that will help to reduce their smoking prevalence rate. And indeed, we have been successful in doing this because I have actually given statistics to show that smoking prevalence rates have fallen to 10.6% in 2019, and we are doing more. We are going to expand the smoking prohibited areas to even more places.

In fact, somebody said, "Actually, our smoking prohibition in common areas in residential estate is really right up to the doorstep of your homes already." So, it is not really just about neighbourly disputes. But, as I have said to ban smoking in homes, there are couple of issues, not just about enforcement but also about privacy concerns. So, that leads to my answer to the second question. Why can we not just use the cameras we are using? Indeed, in my response, I have elaborated on why it is difficult to enforce using the cameras we have – both optical cameras as well as thermal cameras.

So, just give Members an illustration. In fact, as the Member said, we have had years of experience using optical cameras for high-rise littering enforcement and then recently thermal cameras for enforcement against smoking in prohibited areas. So, because we have years of experience, my NEA colleagues fully understand the intractable difficulties in enforcing against smoking at balconies and windows.

Allow me to just elaborate a little, Deputy Speaker. First of all, thermal cameras are of shorter range than the optical cameras for high-rise littering. And as I have said, for high-rise littering, we can have the optical cameras at ground level point as Member said, at the facade, as long as you can see somebody throwing the cigarette – the act of throwing – we will then investigate from which floor, we know which unit, we can investigate and then get the person to admit to the littering offence.

For smoking at balconies and windows, as I have explained, it is not so easy because you need to see the smoker in the act of taking the lighted cigarette or holding the cigarette and to do that you have to train the camera at level with as well as directly at the windows or balconies. First, because of the design of flats and increasingly so, it is very difficult to find common areas where you can put cameras and be able to aim directly at that flat. Flats, for instance, with recess windows and balconies, you cannot do it. Most of the private condominium designs are very difficult, you cannot do it. Even for high-rise littering, it is already difficult and that is just the facade. For smoking, you actually have to look in. And the problem is, if you just step back behind, like I say, curtains, walls and so on, the person is actually still near the windows and balconies, but you cannot catch. So, that is optical camera.

We have even thought about how do you do it if you cannot mount at the ground floor. You have to mount at a certain height and distance, but will you be able to find common staircases that there has a good vantage point? If you cannot, can you mount it in the homes of residents? Unlikely.

The other thing is, even for high-rise littering camera when you mount and aim, the camera will be looking at a few units, so there are actually privacy concerns. But for high-rise littering, because we are aiming at the facade, I think it is less of an issue. But, for smoking, it will be really an intrusion into privacy. Because even the innocent resident may also be in the line of sight.

For thermal cameras, the distance is only 40 metres so you can well imagine if you are separated or blocked by trees, so on and so forth, you will not be able to get the heat signature. I hope that explains.

Source: Hansard