More no-smoking areas from next year
Section: Home
By: TANIA TAN
Publication: The Straits Times 01/03/2008
Page: H11
NO BUTTS about it: Starting next year, smokers will have fewer places to light up.
Section: Home
By: TANIA TAN
Publication: The Straits Times 01/03/2008
Page: H11
NO BUTTS about it: Starting next year, smokers will have fewer places to light up.
Come Jan 1, puffing will no longer be allowed in non-air-conditioned workplaces and public areas, including children's playgrounds, markets and multi-storey carparks.
The move, announced yesterday, is a bid to discourage smoking among the young, and to "offer greater protection to non-smokers", said Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Yaacob Ibrahim.
He was responding to questions from MP Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC), who expressed concern that Singaporeans were picking up the habit at a young age.
"Children learn by watching the actions of adults around them," said Mr Liang.
"The smokers are not just ruining their own health and (that of) others, they are also setting a bad example for young and impressionable children."
A smoking ban that kicked in at nightspots on July 1 last year has yielded positive results, said Dr Yaacob.
Since then, air quality in bars and night clubs has improved, with an 80 per cent reduction in the amount of air-borne particles that can lead to heart and lung problems.
To further help young smokers kick the habit, polyclinics and some hospitals also provide quit-smoking programmes. These efforts have reduced the proportion of first-time smokers among 13- to 16-year-olds to 19 per cent in 2006, down from 26 per cent in 2000, he said.
But putting up anti-smoking signs is just half the battle, said Mr Liang. People are still flouting bans and enforcement needs to be stepped up.
"There continues to be many complaints from Singaporeans about having to contend with second-hand smoke," said Mr Liang.
The National Environment Agency (NEA) has some 420 officers dedicated to smoking out rule-breakers of public health laws, including non-smoking bans. They are further supported by about 50 external officers hired by the NEA.
"We will step up enforcement should the need arise," said Dr Yaacob.
***
In the above article entitled ‘More no-smoking areas from next year’, Tania Tan reports on the new move by the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources to ban smoking in non-air-conditioned workplaces and public areas, including children’s playgrounds, markets and multi-storey carparks, with effect from 1st January 2009. More significantly, this revisits the debate over whether smoking in public should be socially acceptable.
The move, according to the article, is a follow-up of the smoking ban implemented on 1st July 2007, when the smoking ban was extended to public food places. I welcome this initiative, yet could not help but wonder: is this the only way?
Truth be told, I concur with the point-of-view as put forth by the article. Indeed, smoking could bring about adverse social and health repercussions. As cited by the writer, smokers could set a bad example for young and impressionable children, while second-hand smoke poses a health threat to non-smokers. Essentially, irresponsible smokers could lead to a social backlash, hence the need for responsible smoking.
However, punishment should not be the only way to ensure responsible smoking. As the writer astutely pointed out, many are still flouting smoking bans. This could be due to the unwitting action of smokers, who do not understand how smoking might possibly harm others. Just like a child who has committed an error unknowingly, one should seek to address the mistake first instead of meting out immediate punishment.
In response to this, perhaps we could divert our efforts to educating such unwitting rule-breakers, rather than stepping up enforcement. The latter, while it is a short-term solution, only serves to instil fear in smokers and may not be viable in the long term. Conversely, work done in educating the public, specifically smokers, has been centralised more on the individual. For example, health warnings and grotesque photographs are printed on cigarette packets as a caution to what may happen to the smoker. However, I feel that more emphasis should be placed on what may happen to others, such as by means of second-hand smoke. In this, we are pursuing a long-term solution, for change can only happen willingly when there is understanding.
The move, according to the article, is a follow-up of the smoking ban implemented on 1st July 2007, when the smoking ban was extended to public food places. I welcome this initiative, yet could not help but wonder: is this the only way?
Truth be told, I concur with the point-of-view as put forth by the article. Indeed, smoking could bring about adverse social and health repercussions. As cited by the writer, smokers could set a bad example for young and impressionable children, while second-hand smoke poses a health threat to non-smokers. Essentially, irresponsible smokers could lead to a social backlash, hence the need for responsible smoking.
However, punishment should not be the only way to ensure responsible smoking. As the writer astutely pointed out, many are still flouting smoking bans. This could be due to the unwitting action of smokers, who do not understand how smoking might possibly harm others. Just like a child who has committed an error unknowingly, one should seek to address the mistake first instead of meting out immediate punishment.
In response to this, perhaps we could divert our efforts to educating such unwitting rule-breakers, rather than stepping up enforcement. The latter, while it is a short-term solution, only serves to instil fear in smokers and may not be viable in the long term. Conversely, work done in educating the public, specifically smokers, has been centralised more on the individual. For example, health warnings and grotesque photographs are printed on cigarette packets as a caution to what may happen to the smoker. However, I feel that more emphasis should be placed on what may happen to others, such as by means of second-hand smoke. In this, we are pursuing a long-term solution, for change can only happen willingly when there is understanding.
I also believe that as much as we should protect non-smokers' rights, smokers' rights should be protected as well. For one, as the ban limits their smoking areas, smokers may find the treatment somewhat discriminatory and unfair. To resolve this, recent suggestions in the Forum propose 'smoking chambers' for smokers so as to allow them to have their puff. This could be a feasible idea that would protect the interests of both groups of people.
Undeniably, some still defy the smoking bans in full knowledge of the undesirable consequences that may befall others. A significant number of these people believe that smoking is their right, and others should not deny them the right to smoke even in public areas. As a matter of fact, I am of the same opinion: smokers do have a right, a right to smoke at their free will.
But caution: non-smokers do have a right too, a right to the fresh air that nature provides.
No comments:
Post a Comment