The National Environment Agency (NEA) is aiming to raise hygiene standards and the cleanliness levels of coffee shop toilets in Singapore (Funding to improve toilets at coffee shops, hawker centres, Oct 4).

As part of the Toilet Improvement Programme, coffee shop owners or operators will be encouraged to remove smoking corners.

Once removed, patrons can enjoy a better dining experience without being exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke.

For those who choose the option to remove, they will be supported with funding of up to 90 per cent (or $45,000 cap) "to renovate their toilets through infrastructural improvements, and incorporate toilet technologies and productivity measures to facilitate cleaning and maintenance in the long run". This is well and good.

I am, however, disappointed that NEA also provides another option allowing coffee shop owners and operators to retain their smoking corners. This option is still supported by funding of up to 60 per cent (or $30,000 cap).

How does this option tie in with the NEA's and the Government's drive to protect non-smokers from exposure to second-hand smoke?

When smoking in many public places such as void decks, bus stops, overhead bridges, covered walkways and public parks is already prohibited by law, why is smoking still allowed in coffee shops?

For those coffee shop owners and operators who wish to retain their smoking corner, the NEA can achieve its complementary objective of protecting non-smokers from second-hand smoke by allowing funding support, through the improvement programme, for operators to erect physical partitions to separate smoking and non-smoking sections. Such partitioning has already been done in Nee Soon South. It is a win-win situation for smokers and non-smokers if coffee shop owners and operators choose to retain their smoking corner.

The erection of physical partitions should also be made mandatory through legislation.

A much better outcome can be achieved by the NEA with a tweak to the funding programme.

Chia Yong Soong