Sir, let me first start by thanking all Members who have spoken and very strongly supported the Bill. Let me first reply to Mr Heng Chiang Meng. Mr Heng has asked that in tackling the pollution problem, we should start at source, and one good way is to start by educating the young and having the adults set the example. Sir, I totally agree with him, which is why we have a very active programme of involving the schools in environmental issues. In fact, many of the schools now have environmental clubs and we will continue to encourage those which do not have such clubs to form them. Sir, he has commented that the Bill sounds like a punishment Bill. The Bill stipulates what the owners and occupiers must do, but it does not really provide any incentives to help them comply with the requirements. Sir, he is right. This is a Bill to control pollution, which is why it stipulates all the requirements, in terms of pollution control. There are incentives. But the incentives are contained in other legislation and I will go into them afterwards. Mr Heng asked that we should differentiate the punishments because the range of polluters is so huge and the circumstances of the pollution are also very varied. Sir, indeed, we will do that. The law stipulates the maximum in which the punishment can be levied. But in levying the punishment, we will take into consideration the circumstances and the sort of polluter. This is something which has been in practice and will continue. He has asked why the Bill did not include specifically things like motor vehicles since the pollution from motor vehicles is quite significant. Sir, in drafting the clause, we opted to give a broader description. It is not just motor vehicles because down the road, there could be other sources of pollution which we will be looking at. This description gives us maximum flexibility. But in ensuring that the message goes through very clearly, I have spent quite some time describing why diesel particulates are dangerous to health, and this is going to be one of the key points that we are going to focus on in terms of pollution control on motor vehicles. He has asked whether the Bill applies to sea pollution. Sir, the Bill applies to pollutants discharged into drains and the definition of "drains" would be watercourses and rivers as well as the sea shore, in essence. So land-based discharge of pollutants into the watercourses that end up in the sea would still be caught within the ambit of this Bill. But pollution from ships is not covered by this Bill. Pollution from ships would be covered under another Act, which is the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act and this is administered and enforced by MPA. Mr Heng talked about noise pollution. Again, because of the varying circumstances and locations where noise pollution is emitted, there should be a varying standard applicable to each situation. Sir, indeed that is the case. We have different permissible noise levels for different locations. For example, areas near to the homes for the aged and hospitals would have a much lower permissible noise level than, for example, a site that is in the middle of nowhere. Mr Heng also expressed concern that since there is a provision that is very much akin to the environmental impact assessment study requirement, the power to order the carrying out of such a study should be vested in the Minister rather than the Director. Sir, there is no need for that stipulation because even when the Director makes an important order, that order normally would have to be cleared by the Minister before it is finally issued. He has also asked about punishment for persons or companies that submit fraudulent data. Yes, we have the self-monitoring equipment and we are supposed to check. What is there to prevent the companies from tinkering with the data and then submitting false data? Sir, the companies are required to submit the data from the self-monitoring equipment to the Ministry for certain operating periods. If they go and doctor those data, they will be guilty of committing a crime and we would definitely take action against them. I must say that, so far, my Ministry has not encountered any company that has submitted doctored data to us. Mr Ang Mong Seng talked about noise and he made three points that for work sites near homes, the work should be constrained after 8.00 pm and that after 8.00 pm, no work which emits loud noise should be allowed. Sir, in fact, we do have a requirement that after 7.00 pm, the noise level from work sites would have to be greatly reduced. So, in fact, we have gone one step further than what Mr Ang has asked for. He has also asked that the noise be measured at an appropriate level rather than just on the ground level as in certain circumstances, the ground floor may be fairly quiet, but if you go to the upper floors, it may be very noisy. Sir, I take his point and I will ask my officers to look into that. He has also asked that since most work sites will have a safety officer, we should perhaps make the safety officer also responsible for looking into the noise level emitted from the work site. Sir, my Ministry is now looking into the concept of an environmental control officer. We should look into various environmental aspects relating to work sites, such as breeding of mosquitoes. I will ask my officers to see whether one of the duties could also be to monitor the noise level. But we want to be careful not to overburden the construction sites with all kinds of requirements. The thinking is that, at the present moment, the environmental control officer can also double up as a safety officer. Therefore, it is not a requirement for an additional person to be employed but really to broaden the role of the safety officer who is already working there. We will look into his suggestion. Prof. Low Seow Chay has cautioned against exempting the Director from personal liability and with this exemption provision, it may encourage the Director to make a wrong or easy decision at the expense of the company. Sir, I can assure him that, with or without the exemption provision, Government officials take their job very seriously and they always make decisions in good faith. The Environmental Pollution Control Bill has got very broad and serious implications. I can assure him that the Director is definitely a person who would take his job very seriously and would ensure that the decisions are made in a very balanced manner. The first priority must be of course to safeguard the health and safety of Singaporeans. It may be an expensive control measure, but if the pollutant is death threatening, we cannot take the easy way out and say, "Well, let us use a cheaper equipment and let them pollute the air." We will always have to make sure that the first priority is to safeguard the health of our people and to ensure that the standards are reasonable standards. We should not go for ideal standards which will of course require very heavy investment, much heavier than is necessary. Here, I want to tie this in to what Mr Simon Tay has asked on what sort of standards we are using. We are basing our standards on those of the developed countries. For example, for air quality, our basic standard is the World Health Organisation's long-term goals for air quality. Many of the developing countries are not close to that yet, but we have already adopted that standard as our standard, and this is supplemented by the US Environmental Protection Agency's primary air quality standards as well. In fact, these are well-researched standards of a very high level but attainable level, and we have adopted this as our standard. I may as well answer the rest of the questions on this issue. For trade effluent, we use the standards of countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the USA and Europe. In ensuring that these standards are achievable, we have also looked at the ability to comply with these standards, what sort of investment is needed, and our assessment has been that these standards are reasonable and the investments are not overwhelming. Prof. Low has asked whether the burning of wood is covered under the Bill. Yes, the burning of wood is covered in clause 14 of the Bill. He has gone on to ask about the transportation and storage of toxic and polluting substances and who determines. What system do we use? The procedure is a very well-established one. When a company applies for permission to handle, store, or sell hazardous substances, we will first ask them for their proposal, which should include storage system, handling system, pollution control system if an accident happens, and based on their proposal, we will then review. If their proposal is a very rational one, we would be very happy to accept their proposal. It is not our purpose to run their business for them. Our interest is to ensure that the systems are in place and the systems are reasonable and that they are well structured technically and capable of coping with accidents. So we leave it to them. But if we find that the proposal is far below the minimum standards, then the Director would have to impose certain requirements, and these requirements would not be something which is taken out from the air because much of the business is already available in Singapore and therefore we can use the current practices and equipment as a standard for the new company. He has asked about cleaning up. If there is a discharge of pollutants, then who bears the cost of the clean up? I think it is quite clear. He who pollutes must pay. The company that discharges the pollutants must pay for the clean up. Quite often, time is of essence and the Ministry may then have to arrange for the clean-up straightaway, in which case the cost of the clean up is then charged to the company. Prof. Low asked about smell pollution and he said that the Bill does not seem to address odours. Odours are catered for under the Environmental Public Health Act and it has been quite adequate. He gave the example of Beecham, a factory in the Boon Lay area, that used to emit very strong smell. Arising from feedback from the residents and people passing by, officers from ENV went to the factory involved and worked with the factory to address the sources of that smell and how to control it. I am glad to say that if he drives past that area today, I do not think he will have that problem anymore. He has also asked about people who trade in hazardous substances and who are collecting such waste and whether such persons must have adequate treatment facilities before a licence is issued. For companies or persons who wish to go into the business of collecting hazardous waste, we will require them to have the necessary treatment facilities. He brought up the case of a company who collected waste wood and had a big pile of waste wood which was subsequently burnt. Sir, he was not a hazardous waste collector. He was a waste wood recycler and therefore the circumstances were quite different. He had a recycling facility except I do not think he ran his facility very well and because of that, he had some problems and a fire broke out. The Government put out the fire and the cost of putting out the fire and the clean up was indeed charged to the company. Prof. Low also talked about the use of CFC 11 and CFC 113. CFC 11 has been prohibited in Singapore and is therefore no longer used today in the production of styrofoam. I believe they use another gas which is approved. As to the import of CFC 113, it has been banned since January 1996. However, under the Montreal Protocol, remnant stocks are allowed to be used up. So what you see in Singapore that is being used are really the remnant stocks which would be used up in the near future. He has asked how the qualified persons and registered inspectors are chosen. My Ministry conducts training courses on how to vet plans and do site inspections, and those professionals, architects and engineers who have gone through that training course would then qualify to be registered inspector. And we are looking into how to increase the number of training programmes so that we can enlarge the pool of registered inspectors. Mr Tay Beng Chuan is worried that with this Bill, the Ministry will nitpick and enforce in a very tough manner. Let me first explain that this Bill is not a totally new Bill. It is a compilation of parts from different existing Acts and compiled into one Bill that handles the entire spectrum of pollution. Many of the clauses are therefore existing provisions and already operational. Some of them have been operational since 1971, so they are well-tried and well-proven. The few clauses which are new are actually provisions which are already operational also but they are carried out administratively. What we have done is to now formalise this by converting those administrative requirements into law. I can assure Mr Tay that the enactment of this Bill will not in any way change the administration of pollution control in Singapore. Next, he went on quite a fair bit about bak kua and asked why has ENV proceeded to ban the outdoor barbecuing of bak kua, especially during the Chinese New Year season. Sir, this issue is one which we have been discussing with the bak kua manufacturers for some time already. In fact, I think as early as about 1 1/2 years ago, they were pre-alerted, and about a year ago, after the last Chinese New Year, we proceeded to hold fairly detailed discussions with the bak kua operators to explain to them. The barbecuing of bak kua on street pavements has been in place for a long time, as Mr Tay has mentioned. And every Chinese New Year, you see them sprouting around all over Singapore, Chinatown and elsewhere. These street and pavement stalls are not licensed and they are not housed in licensed premises either. They spring up, operate for a few weeks and they disappear and we are not even sure where they obtain their raw meat and meat patty from. And this is the problem. It is not the smoke pollution. In fact, in announcing this move, ENV had made sure that both the Chinese press and the English press and the other media carried the explanation quite clearly that it was a public health concern, not smoke. If it is smoke, that is really not an issue. The lack of hygiene at these makeshift stalls can lead to serious outbreaks of food borne diseases, not unlike those that had been experienced recently in some other countries. I will give you some examples. The recent outbreak of Avian flu in Hongkong resulted in six deaths and the E-coli outbreak in Japan, well-known for very clean food conditions, it broke out very quickly, killed seven people before it stopped. These are very recent examples of how such food borne diseases can quickly appear from nowhere and then pose a tremendous danger to the population. As far as bak kua is concerned, there are proper places for the food to be produced and bought and, in fact, if you walk down Chinatown, one would see many bak kua stalls. The key thing is that because the shops and stalls are licensed, the public can be assured of the proper food standards. We are dealing with a genuine public health concern and I think it is best that we stick to it. He has also talked about the need not to break traditions. Sir, I agree with him. We would also like to keep as many of our traditions as possible, but we think that we have to realise that over time, some of the traditional practices may have to change, for good reasons, and we should not change them unless there are good reasons. Firecrackers were a very strong traditional practice. I remember growing up where, during Chinese New Year's eve, we were playing around with firecrackers, half the night not being able to sleep but I still enjoyed it. But we still had to intervene because there was a public health concern. In the case of bak kua, I do not think having that stall there is a tradition. Eating bak kua, I believe, for some people is very important, and we have not stopped this. You can still buy bak kua freely in Chinatown and in many of the supermarkets. I can assure Members that it is not our intention to stop the production and sale of bak kua. Mr Simon Tay talked about standards and I have already replied to him. Next, he went on to talk about best practices and methods of production. I want to assure him that we do work closely with EDB and with the other Ministries and agencies to ensure that whatever we do, we are able to adopt the best practices available, but it must be a best practice that is also economical. We do not believe in going for the ideal approach, because I think that would totally make us uncompetitive. I agree with him that we must be investment friendly while at the same time safeguarding our environment. He also talked about the breadth of legislation and that we do not go far enough in tackling pollution from abroad. This topic has cropped up periodically and I think we have to be realistic. There is really no meaning to having a provision in our legislation which we cannot enforce. And if it is pollution from a neigbouring country, it is very difficult for us to go to that neighbouring country and enforce our law if they themselves are unable to enforce their own laws. So, I think we have to be realistic and tackle this problem from another angle. Next, he said that we should not impose controls after the fact, ie, having the self-monitoring devices is good but the pollution is already there. It is after the fact, and that we should do it before the fact. We actually do that. Whenever a project proposal is received by the EDB and the various Government departments that has a pollution element in it, that project is referred to us and we will work with the company very early in the project planning stage to make sure that they understand what are our requirements and that they build that capability to achieve our requirements into the process, because that is the most cost effective way. So our requirements become an integral part of their routine production process, which is why despite our very high requirements, I think no company has come back to tell us that our standards are not achievable. He has also asked that we assure him that the inter-Ministry coordination work continues. Sir, that has been an ongoing process. There is very close inter-Ministry coordination and we will continue with that, both in terms of pollution control and land use. Whenever the Master Plan Committee reviews the Master Plan, ENV is involved, as are many other Government agencies. He talked about clauses 26 and 36 and that these are akin to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and that we should get public involvement in them. At this point, I think it is useful to explain the whole process. We have to start from the Master Plan stage. In drawing up the Master Plan, the URA already got all the inputs from both the Government agencies as well as members of the public, because the URA would normally proceed to hold public dialogues when they release their draft development guide plans and the Master Plan. So the macro planning is the key point where all inputs are taken in, as well as from members of the public. By the time when a specific project proposal is received, we are not really looking at the macro issues any more. We are really looking at the micro issues, what sort of pollutants, what sort of process, what is the level of pollution, what are our standards. These are highly technical issues. We have, over the years, built up a tremendous pool of expertise in the Government departments and where the expertise is still lacking, because maybe it is a new pollutant, for example, then what we do is that we will take in technical experts from either Singapore or from abroad to advise us. So by the time ENV gets involved in these issues, these are highly technical issues rather than a systemic broad-based type of issue, and we are very focused in dealing with them. He talked about clause 37, on self-monitoring equipment, and that we should help companies to upgrade by providing some incentives. The incentives are there. Mr Heng Chiang Meng mentioned that too. Let me explain very briefly. For ISO 14001, for example, we already have a scheme which is administered by the Productivity and Standards Board that offers financial grants of up to 70% of the cost of the consultancy, subject to a maximum of $40,000. And an additional grant of 50% of the one-time cost for obtaining ISO 14001 certification. My Ministry itself administers a scheme called the Accelerated Depreciation Allowance Scheme to encourage companies to use not just energy efficient equipment but also more efficient pollution control equipment. So this scheme is already in place. There are various schemes which are available and those in the industry are quite familiar with them. He talked about clause 15 and whether it applies to industrial and non-industrial land and whether it also applies to fertilisers. I believe the clause does apply to other than industrial land. On the issue of fertilisers, definitely, yes, we do control the use of fertilisers. We make sure that our water catchment areas and the land around the reservoirs use fertilisers which are approved by both ENV and PUB, because ultimately PUB is the agency responsible for safeguarding the quality of our water. He mentioned that the figure of $5,000 is not adequate. I have looked at the clause that he mentioned. The $5,000 fine refers to people who failed to inform ENV about the incidence of pollution. It is not for the act of polluting, but for not informing us. Yes, I am correct. It says, "shall immediately inform" and if he does not immediately inform, there is a fine of $5,000. For pollution to inland waters, the maximum fine, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, is actually $100,000. This is a large sum because we need to safeguard our water supplies.. Sir, I think I missed out an important point made by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, ie, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I understand Mr Heng's concerns because the passing of environmental control Bills would be momentous in most countries, except that in Singapore we are actually ahead of most countries. We started on environmental controls many, many years ago and therefore this Bill is not a brand new Bill containing brand new provisions. Many of the provisions here are provisions which have been in existence for 25-30 years. Therefore, there is no need for us to send this Bill to a Select Committee. However, from time to time, we do get feedback from either the industry or the public or from interested parties with suggestions and proposals. And where those feedback are valid, we normally do note them and we would not hesitate to include them in future amendments to the Bill when the opportunity arises. Sir, I believe I have answered most of the points.